ML20236V291
| ML20236V291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/29/1998 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9808030062 | |
| Download: ML20236V291 (78) | |
Text
_
OR G xA_
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
Title:
BRIEFING ON OPERATING REACTORS AND FUEL FACILITIES PUBLIC MEETING l
Location:
Rockville, Maryland Date:
Wednesday, July 29,1998 Pages:
1 - 68
/
i i
hL j
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1025 Connecticut Avenue,NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.20036 VCgi (202) 842-0034
,1
- BAS i889
'" 7 '
PT9.7 PDR I
1 9
i 1
L r
i DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on July 29, 1998, in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been
~
reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain i
inaccuracies.
l The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressionsaof opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed 1
l
-to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
{
1 1
I l
a
e 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
\\
4 BRIEFING ON OPERATING REACTORS AND FUEL FACILITIES 5
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
8 Nuclear Regulatory-Commission 9
Room 1F-16 10 One White Flint North 11 11555 Rockville Pike 12 Rockville, Maryland 13 14 Wednesday, July 29, 1998 15 16 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 17 notice, at 2:05 p.m.,
the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSO'N, 18 Chairman, presiding.
19 20 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
21 SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission 22 NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission 23
. EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the. Commission 24 i
j' 25 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034.
l:
O 2
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
2.
JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary 3
KAREN D.
CYR, General Counsel 4
JAMES TAYLOR, Executive Director for Operations 5
ANNETTE L. VIETTI-COOK, Assistant Secretary 6
JOSEPH CALLAN, EDO 7
DR. CARL PAPERIELLO, Acting Region III Administrator 8
HUBERT MILLER, Region I Administrator 9
LUIS REYES, Region II Administrator
- 10 JIM DYER, Deputy Region IV Administrator 11 SAMUEL COLLINS, Director, NRR 12 DR. MALCOLM KNAPP, Acting Director, NMSS 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i
25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 L
J
i 3
1
, PROCEEDINGS 2
(2:05 p.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Good afternoon.
4 I am pleased to have senior agency managers 5
including the regional administrators here today to brief 6
the Commission on the results of the July, 1998 Senior 7
Management Meeting.
The Senior Management Meeting provides 8
for selected plants an opportunity for all of the agency's I
9 Senior Managers to review the results of the latest 10 systematic assessment of licensee performance, the most 11 recent plant performance review and various indicators that l
12 are not directly associated with the regional inspection 13 program.
14 The purpose of the NRC assessment processes is to 15 identify adverse trends in licensee performance well before 16 the point at which a facility becomes unsafe to operate 17 under existing legislation and regulation.
18 With this purpose in mind, I would request that a
19 all_of you in attendance today consider what you hear in the 20 proper context.
That is, that the plants to be discussed 3
21 have been or will be the subject of increased agency 22 attention, not because of an existing threat to the public 23 health and safety but because of negative performance trends 24 that could lead to challenges to safety if not corrected.
25 The agency uses different regulatory methods to i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
]
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
4 1
assess situations of immediate threats to public health and 2
safety.
Additionally, these plants continue to be subject 3
to this increased scrutiny until they have demonstrated 4
sustained improvement as evidenced by performance measures.
5 The Staff at the direction of the Commission has 6
been evaluating the NRC assessment processes for a couple of 7
years now.
We have implemented significant improvements 8
over the past two years.
For example, the last three Senior 9
Management Meetings have been affected by changes to the 10 information reviewed and the structure in which it is 11 evaluated as well as by changes in the reles and 12 responsibilities and involvement of the var.ious Senior 13 Managers.
l 14 Future changes already set to take' effect include l_
15 the switch of the meeting from a biannual to an annual 16 frequency.
Even more fundamental changes currently are 17 being planned, in part because of continuing weaknesses that 18 we had already planned to address and in part due to recent 19 interactions with some of our stakeholder.
20 Now that I have reviewed some aspects of the f
21 assessment process, let me turn to the read purpose of 1
l 22 today's meeting, which is a discussion of the results --
23 unless my colleagues have comments.
24
[No response.)
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Mr. Callan, please proceed.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
5 1
MR. CALLAN:
Thank you, Chairman Jackson, and good 2
afternoon Chairman and Commissioners.
3 With me at the table this afternoon are the 4
Director of NRR, Sam Collins; the Acting Director of NMSS, 5
Dr. Mal Knapp; Regional Administrator from Region I, Hub 6
Miller; the Regional Administrator from Region II, Luis 7
Reyes; the Acting Regional Administrator from Region III, 8
Dr. Carl Paperiello -- who, by the way, will be returning to 9
NMSS as its Director. effective next Monday; and Jim Dyer,
'10 the Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IV.
11 Chairman, as you stated, our purpose here today is 12 to brief the Commission on the results of the Senior 13 Management Meeting that was held in Region III in Chicago 14 two weeks ago.
As is our usual practice, Sam Collins, the 15 Director of NRR, will follow me and will briefly discuss the 16 process outlined in Management Directive 8.14, which is the 17 governing procedure for the Senior Management Meeting 18 process.
He will focus, emphasize the continuing 19 enhancements to the process as well as the initiatives that 20 we current have underway.
21 Then, following Sam, the Regional Administrators 22 will conduct their briefings on the specific facilities that L
23 the agency has acted upon as a result of the meeting -- and 24 with that, Sam?
25 MR. COLLINS:
Thank you, Joe.
Good afternoon, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
6 1
Chairman, Commissioners.
2 As previously stated, the Senior Management 3
Meeting process has two fundamental purposes.
The first is 4
to identify a potential problem, performance and adverse 5
trends before they become actual safety events.
The second 6
is to effectively utilize agency resources by allocating 7
those resources in the oversight of operating reactor safety 8
on a graded basis.
9 To accomplish these objectives an integrated 10 review of plant safety performance is conducted using 11 objective information.such as plant-specific inspection 12 results, operating experience, probabilistic risk insights, 13 systematic assessment of licensee performance, performance 14 indicators, trend charts and enforcement history as 15 examples.
16 Special attention is given to the effectiveness of 17 licensee self-assessments and particularly the effectiveness 18 of corrective actions.
Our objective is to identify 19 facilities whose performance requires agency-wide close 20 monitoring and oversight.
As a part of the process we also 21 discuss planned inspection activities, NRC management and 22 oversight, and allocation of resources for those plants that 23 are brought to the Senior Management Meeting itself.
24 Before presenting the results, I would like to 25
-briefly review the changes, as Joe indicated, to the Senior ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
7 1
Management Meeting. process that have recently been 2
implemented to make it more effective.
3 As with the previous 1998 January Senior 4
Management Meeting, as well as the May and June screening l
5 meetings, they were conducted with wider participation by 6
Senior Agency Managers including Directors of Office of
~
7 Investigation, Office of Enforcement, the Office of Analysis 8
and Evaluation of Operational Data, as well as Regional 9
Administrators and myself.
10 Representatives were also there to discuss the 11 allegations process.
12 As Chair of the screening meetings, I actively 13 solicited inputs of all participating managers.
Any one 14
. participant at the screening meeting could individually 15 designate a plant to be moved on to the Senior Management 16 Meeting for discussion.
It was understood that any plant i
17 that was taken to the Senior Management Meeting process 18 would be considered eligible to be given some agency action 19 such as given a trending letter or being placed on the Watch 20 List.
21 Trends charts were developed through the office of 22 AEOD and the IPE and event risk insights were also provided.
23 These were available at the screening meetings and used 24 along with other objective data in selecting discussion 25 plants.
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
8 1
Economic data was available as background 2
information at the screening meetings but it was not used as 3
part of the decision-making process during the discussion at 4
the Senior Management Meeting itself.
5 Trend plots were used in a similar manner during 6
the Senior Management Meeting.
Plant performance trends 7
were discussed.
Current trends and underlying data were 8
explored in detail.
This ended up being the greatest 9
advantage of the use of trend plots.
10 Tim Martin of AEOD explained the trend plots, 11 identified the patterns of events that were driving trends.
12 The value of the trend plots came from looking at the 13 dominant events that were driving the trends.
14 Understanding the significance of those events and 15 the underlying causes, whether they were 16 licensee-identified, self-revealing or NRC-identified was 17 taken into consideration.
In some cases the events that 18 were driving the trend plots were identified as positive 19 indicators of performance because they were 20 licensee-identified and corrected in a timely manner.
21 At the Senior Management Meeting risk insights 22 from Research, the Office of Research, and AEOD were 23 utilized during the Day 1 discussions and used extensively 24 to review the appropriateness of Senior Management Meeting 25 voting results on Day 2.
)
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
9 1
In addition to these previously mentioned trend 2
plots, we continued to enhance the pro / con charts and Watch 3
List removal matrix as further improve nents by providing 4
additional guidanc* on how to prepare the charts for 5
uniformity -- including guidance on what information should 6
be referenced to support the specific pro / con argument for 7
proposed agency action at a facility.
8 The pro / con charts and the removal matrices were 9
provided to meeting participants prior to the management 10 meeting along with the basis for discussion and supporting 11 information.
12 For future Senior Management Meetings we plan to 13 continue incorporating changes as they are identified to the 14 process and as they become available we will test them for 15 implementation.
16 The ongoing interaction with NEI and other t
17 stakeholder will additionally provide valuable input to 18 future revisions to this process.
19 I would next like to summarize the overall results 20 of the Senior Management Meeting.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Yes, please.
22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I would like to ask a 23 question --
l Cert' inly.
24 MR. COLLINS:
a 25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
-- with regard to trying i
JJRJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
10 1
to place the Senior Management Meeting in the context of the 2
other activities we do in the assessment area.
3 As you said at the outset, a goal is to figure out 4
how to allocate agency resources and that is resources that 5
require -- that are quite intense but could you explain 6
briefly how the PPR, which as I understand it is a regional 7
tool, feeds into this, because in the PPR we will tweak an 8
inspection program for a licensee that doesn't -- that isn't 9
going to be discussed or whatever and it makes small 10 adjustments in our resources based on where we think that 11 they are going to be most productively used.
12 I guess I would also like to know how much the PPR 13 process is already getting integrated or into the Senior 14 Management Meeting process so it isn't -- they are two 15 separate processes or whether that is still a 16 work-in-progress, because it struck me that all these PPR 17 letters went out with their attached plant issues matrices 18 about the same time that you were having the screening 19 meeting, so there's certainly a' fortuitous -- I hope people 20 didn't have to produce two pieces of paper for purposes of 21 the screening meetings.
22 MR. COLLINS:
- Right, Just for a point of 23 clarification, Commissioner McGaffigan, the Senior 24 Management Meeting process allocates agency resources that 25 are not typically considered during the quarterly or the l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 j
11 1
semi-annual reviews or as a result of the SALP process, 2
although the SALP process can be an exception to that.
3 The types of actions that would result from a 4
Senior Management Meeting would be a diagnostic inspection.
5 In the case of Indian Point, for example, in the January 6
timeframe, Hub Miller, the Regional Administrator of Region 7
I was tasked with providing additional insights in the 8
operating area by what we call an OSTI, the Operational 9
Safety Team Inspection, and then in communication with the 10 licensee they agreed to do a joint effort in that regard, so 11 there is a hierarchy, if you will, of efforts.
12 The PPR process, which allocates regional 13 resources, and those expertises from other regions or 14 headquarters as are necessary to conduct the regional 15 program, is an ongoing process.
That is really not affected 16 by the Senior Management Meeting process unless the Senior 17 Managers take an action which overlays or preempts some of 18 their preplanned inspection.
19 An example might be that at Indian Point with the 20 conduct of the Operational Safety Team Inspection, Hub and 21-his Managers in Region I might decide that that could 22 preempt some of the operations inspections that were 23 pre-scheduled, so this --
24 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
What I am suggesting 25 though is that the PPR process presumably informs the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 3
}
12 1
Regional Administrators as they come to the screening 2
meetings and they don't need separate information.
They may 3
'get some separate information but that provides the base on 4
which they then build, as you go forward to decide --
5 MR. COLLINS:
That's right.
6 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
-- whether these 7
agency-level resources have to be applied in a particular 8
circumstance.
9 MR. COLLINS:
That's correct -- but there are 10 limits to the routine inspection program, however --
11 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right, I understand 12 that.
13 MR. COLLINS:
-- which the subsequent actions are 14 meant to reach to.
15 MR. MILLER:
But to one of your other questions, 16 as an implementor I can say that we have done better over 17 the several cycles now of integrating the PPR piece with the 18 screening meeting and the Senior Management Meeting and so 19 that the amount of paper that has to be developed, the 20 number of revisions that have to be done by the Staff, which 21 can sap the Staff if it is not tightly connected -- we are 22 doing much better at that and in fact the meetings are 23 sequenced to avoid having to go back and except as there is 24 a big change make a lot of revisions.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Good.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
13 1
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
That is what I was 2
getting at.
j 3
MR. COLLINS:
I think the particular benefit is 4
the results of the PPRs and particularly the PIMS I used as 5
a major focus during the screening meetings.
6 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
That is what I 7
was hoping for.
8 MR. COLLINS:
Thank you.
9 I would like to proceed and briefly summarize the 10 overall results of the recent Senior Management Meeting, 11 after which the Regional Administrators will discuss the 12 facilities that we have taken action as a result of the most 13 recent Senior Management Meeting itself.
14 May I have Slide 2, please.
15 Slide 2, which shows Category 1 facilities, 4
16 please.
Okay.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
That's it.
18 MR. COLLINS:
Category 1 is for plants that are l
19 removed from the NRC Watch List, Crystal River from Region 20 2; Salem 1 and 2, Region 1; and Dresden 2 and 3, Region 3, 21 were removed from the Watch List during the July 1998 Senior 22 Management Meeting.
23 Management Directive 8.14 requires that plants 24 placed in Category 1 be reviewed at the next two Senior 25 Management Meetings.
In this regard, Indian Point 3 was t
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
14 1
placed in Category,1 status during the June 1997 Senior 2
Management Meeting.
As such, was discussed for the second 3
or last time at this meeting, and will not be discussed in 4
the future.
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Yes.
6 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
A technical question.
7 Last month, when we told you to go to an annual Senior 8
Management Meeting, we weren't considering details like that 9
fact that in the past when you had six month meetings, there 10 was this requirement in Management Directive 8.14 to look at 11 the next two.
Should we considering changing the 12 periodicity --
13 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
14 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
-- to have it?
15 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I mean if we are going 17 to go to annual.
18 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
There will be cascading 19 revisions down through the Management Directive.
20 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
And you intend to 21 propose to us or just do them on your own?
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
That's their directive.
23 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
24 MR. COLLINS:
The Management Directive will be 25 revised to be consistent with Commission direction as a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
15 1
staff effort.
If there's new policy as a result of that, 2
certainly, that will be brought to the Commission.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
4 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
5 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
And so, let me see, for the 6
sake of time, the only difference between a category plant 7
and plants that have never been on the Watch List is just 8
this additional review.
But that will be that taking place 9
sometime and no othar -- there is no other difference 10 between a category plant and a plant that has never been on 11 the Watch List?
12 MR. COLLINS:
The Category -
you are speaking of 13 Category 1, Commissioner Diaz?
14 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
As far as -- that's right.
I 15 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
The purpose of designating a 16 Category 1 facility is to continue to monitor the plant to 17 ensure that the improvement trends are --
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Sustained.
19 MR. COLLINS:
-- sustained.
That does not cascade 20 down into the inspection program, other than what the 21 Regional Administrators deem is appropriate to continue to follow plant issues.
In all other aspects, other than an 22 l
l 23 update discussion at the Senior Management Meeting, it is l
24 handled as a normal facility.
25 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
But they are not in the Watch ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
16 1
List?
'2 MR. COLLINS:
Correct.
3 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
That's correct.
Right.
Okay.
4 MR. COLLINS:
Slide 3, please.
Category 2 5
facilities are those whose operation is closely monitored by 6
the NRC.
LaSalle, Units 1 and 2 and Clinton remain Category 7
2 facilities.
Millstone 3, having received permission from 8
the Commission to restart previous to the Senior Management 9
Meeting was moved from Category 3 to Category 2 status prior 10 to the Senior Management Meeting.
11 Slide 4, please.
Category 3 facilities are plants 12 that are shut down and require Commission authorization to 13 operate and that the staff closely monitors.
14 As directed by SRM 98-174, July 22nd, 1998, 15 because Millstone Unit 1 has indicated their intent to l
l 16 permanently shut down, the Millstone 1 plant was 1
17 administratively removed from Category 3 status.
Millstone 18 Unit 2 remained in Category 3 status at this time.
l 19 As the Commission is aware, the next quarterly 20 meeting on Millstone will be held in October of 1998.
21 Slide 5, please.
I 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
That is currently scheduled?
23 MR. COLLINS:
Yes, currently scheduled.
Correct.
24 Those dates have moved before.
25 D.C.
Cook, Units 1 and 2 were identified at the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
17 1
Senior Management Meeting as requiring a Trending Letter.
A 2
Trending Letter for Quad Cities was previously issues as a 3
result of the January 1998 Senior Management Meeting and 4
remains in effect at this time.
5 Slide 6, please.
There were no plants which 6
demonstrated that adverse trends had been corrected.
As I 7
previously stated, the Trending Letter remains in effect for 8
Quad Cities as a result of that review.
9 At this time, unless there's further questions, I 10 would like to proceed to Hub Miller, the Region 1 Regional 11 Administrator who will discuss Millstone a.a Salem.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Why don't you mention Slide 7 13 while you are at it?
14 MR. COLLINS:
We'll come to Slide 7 at the --
15 MR. CALLAN:
This is the priority materials 16 facilities.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
There were none.
18 MR. CALLAN:
There were none.
I'll mention it.
19 MR. COLLINS:
Okay.
That's over.
20 We were going to have a little suspense and leave 21 it to the end of the briefing.
2 ?.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Oh, I see.
Okay.
Sorry.
23 MR. COLLINS:
If there's no further questions, I j
I l
24 would ask Hub Miller to proceed.
1 25 MR. MILLER:
Okay.
I'll start with Salem.
Salem i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
I 18 1
was first discussed during Senior Management Meetings in 2
1990 and '91.
Significant problems resurfaced and the plant 3
was discussed again at the June 1994 meeting, and it has 4
been discussed at every management meeting since.
5 In 1995 both units were shut down by Public 6
Service Gas & Electric for extended repairs and corrective 7
actions.
In January 1997, Salem was designated a Category 2 8
Watch List facility, and while progress was being made by 9
the licensee at that time, the Watch List designation was 10 considered to be appropriate, given the significant and 11 longstanding nature of problems that were being addressed by 12 the licensee and the fact that increased agency monitoring 13 of the facility commensurate with Watch List status was 14 actually occurring.
15 Since the last Senior Management Meeting, Public 16 Service completed a comprehensive test program and 17 successfully restarted and operated Unit 1.
At the same la time operation of Unit 2, which was restarted in August of 19 last year, continued to be good.
This successful operation 20 of both units, and our inspection of supporting activities, 21 provide evidence that Public Service has substantially 22 corrected the weaknesses and underlying root causes that led 23 to previous performance problems at the Salem station.
24 Plant material condition, safety culture and 25 management oversight have substantially improved.
The ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
19 1
management team has set high standards for performance and 2
Public Service has provided the resources to make needed' 3
improvements.
Safety oversight and self-assessment 4
processes at the site are strong.
5 While the maintenance backlog remains high, Public 6
Service has demonstrated an understanding of its individual 7
and cumulative effects and has set appropriate priorities 8
for the work needed to resolve it.
Steps have been taken to 9-improve station work. control processes.
The engineering 10 organization, as well as dealing with large backlogs that 11 resulted from aggressive discovery efforts during the 12 outage, is providing good technical support to the station.
13 In summary, licensee actions have been in 14 improving the operational safety performance of Salem Units 15 1 and 2.
Senior managers determined that all criteria in 16 the Watch List removal matrix have been met, and that an 17 enhanced level of regulatory monitoring is no longer 18 warranted.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me ask you two questions.
20 What is'the status of the corrective action program, i
21 particularly in terms of the plant staff's assessment of the l
22 significant of identified deficiencies that are found?
23 MR. MILLER:
Well, I think even before the startup 24 of the first unit, we faced the question of what was in that 25 backlog, the backlog of corrective actions, and had to make ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
20 a judgment about whether the number or the nature of the 1
2
. issues that were there would give reason to object to 3
startup.
So we made that judgment in connection with the 4
startup of Unit 1 and then again on Unit 2.
And it is our 5
conclusion that what is left is not of significance, either, 6
again, individually or cumulatively.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
But the real issue has 8
to do with -- the real question was not were the issues 9
significant, but the performance of the staff in assessing 10 the significance?
11 MR. MILLER:
Are you talking about their staff or 12 ours?
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Their staff.
14 MR. MILLER:
Their staff.
Well, my sense is that 15 they have done a good job of understanding their backlog.
.16.
And, in fact, in both of the operational safety inspections 17 that we did prior to restart of both units, their readiness, 18 restart readiness inspections, we drew the conclusion that 19 they had a better than average grasp of the backlog.
And 20 while it was large --
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
When you say grasp of the 22' backlog, you mean grasp of the significance?
23 MR. MILLER:
Of its significance.
They understood 24 what was in it.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
That's what I am asking.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
I
\\
21 1
MR. MILLER:
And they had things prioritized and 2
plans and the backlog is coming down.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
And so you have 4
mentioned that.
But given our ongoing inspection efforts, 5
j are there any particular focus areas that we plan to have to l
6 ensure that the current trends, good trends continue?
7 MR. MILLER:
I think that I highlighted them, the 8
backlogs.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
The backlogs.
10 MR. MILLER:
I mean just making sure that they in 11 fact follow through now.
I mean the -- I was down there, in 12 fact -- Sam was with me, in fact, at the site about a month 13 ago, and then I returned several weeks after that, and the 14 backlogs are coming down.
But we will watch that.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
And thank you.
l l
16 MR. MILLER:
The second plant is Millstone.
The 17 Millstone Units were first discussed at the June 1991 Senior
'18 Management Meeting and have been discussed at every meeting 19 since.
Subsequent to the June 1996 meeting, the Commission 20 designated Millstone a Category 3 facility requiring 21 Commission approval of restart of the units which were shut 22 down at that time.
j l
23 Because of the extensive recent reviews of 24 Millstone performance which preceded the startup of Unit 3, 25 discussion of the facility at the senior management meeting ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
22 1
was limited.
Senior managers took note of the information 2
that.was developed in connection with the lengthy Commission 3
meetings of May 1 and June 2 and supporting Commission 4
papers prepared by the staff.
5 As the Commission of course is aware, these 6
reviews revea5.ed that Northeast Utilities made sufficient 7
progress to warrant the restart of Unit 3.
Improvements 8
were made in the area of employee concerns and development 9
of a safety-conscious work environment.
Unit 3 licensing 10 and design basis discrepancies were' effectively identified 11 and resolved, and a sound configuration management process 12 was established.
Improvements were noted in self-assessment i
13 activities in the licensee's corrective action program.
l 14 Significant progress was made in the conduct of operations l
I 15 procedure, quality and adherence, operator training and 16 material condition.
17 Unit 3 restarted on June 30 and reached full power 18 on July 14, and overall our assessment is that equipment and 19 personnel performance during startup and power ascens' ion j
20 testing was good.
Subsequent operations at power have 21 continued to be handled in a well-controlled,~ conservative 22 manner by operators.
23 Given the very brief time since startup, however, 24 the senior managers decided an additional period of 25 monitoring was needed.
Unit 3 remains a Category 2 plant.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 j
23 1
And as Sam said, we did not consider the status of Units 1
.2:
and 2, given their Category 3 status or standing on the 3
watch list.
And since the senior management meeting the 4
licensee has announced plans to permanently cease operation, 5
and on that basis, it has been removed from the list 6-administratively.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Have human resources been 8
shifted from Unit 3 to Unit 2?
9 MR. MILLER:
It's my understanding that they have 10 been shifted back.
I don't -- I'm going to make my first
.11 visit to the site in several weeks, but c3early the shift of 12 resources from Unit 2 to Unit 3, which was done prior to 13 restart, that was made, and I believe that that's now, you 14 know, being reversed, and that the resources are now being 15 applied to Unit 2.
16 MR. COLLINS:
We explored that question.
We had 17 an update meeting the other day, Chairman, on the status of 18 the ICAVP program, and Gene Embro answered that question for 19 me, and he indicated <that the resources had previously been 20 shifted from Unit 3 to Unit 2 to provide for the ongoing 21 support for that independent review.
l 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Given that the Commission 23 directed that Little Harbor Consultants should remain for
)
l 24 now, how are we interfacing with them vis-a-vis Unit 3 in 25 terms of ensuring that things continue to move along?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 3025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 1
24 1
MR. MILLER:
That's a piece that will remain with 2
Sam.
I don't know if you want to take a first shot at that.
3 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
We are transitioning, as you 4
know, based on Commission direction, to a more normalized 5
organization for oversight of the Millstone facilities, and 6
there's a Commission paper which is addressing that specific 7
organization shift.
We would intend to provide for 8
oversight of Little Harbor in the safety-conscious work 9
environment and the Employee Concerns Program as a part of 10 the licensing reviews that we perform.
That will come under 11 Mr. Bill Dean, which will report to the line organization up 12 through the NRR office.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
14 MR. MILLER:
But I expect also as a by-product of 15 every inspection we're doing up there, even out of the 16 region, we'll be gauging how effective those efforts have 17 been.
18 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Is there any decision being 19 made or has a preliminary decision been made on how long 20 Little Harbor needs to remain at Unit 3?
21 MR. COLLINS:
If I recall correctly, I may be 22 corrected here, I believe it's a six-month period that we 23 indicated was necessary just to ensure that the area had 24 been stabilized and that the trends that we saw that 25 resulted in the restart decision were sustained over that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 o
25 1
period of time.
l i
L 2
COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
That's correct.
But that's 3
still the number.
4 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
5 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
About.
6 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
8 MR. CALLAN:
Chairman, I would like to add, since 9
we got on the subject, I didn't intend to bring this up, but 10 Hub Miller, who just made the presentation, in this proposal 11 that Sam mentioned to you that's before the Commission, 12 would replace Bill Travers as the senior executive 13 responsible for the Millstone site, which is the normal 14 arrangement, to have the regional administrators 15 MR. COLLINS:
That concludes the remarks on Region 16 I.
If there's no more questions, I'd like to proceed with 17 Luis Reyes, the Region II regional administrator, who will 18-discuss CtoW al River.
I 19 MR. REYES:
Thank you, Sam.
20 Chairman Jackson, Commissioners, I'll be 21 addressing Crystal River.
22 Declining performance at Crystal River was first 23 discussed during the June 1996 senior management meeting.
24 Performance concerns at Crystal River _previously discussed 25 involve Florida Power Corporation's handling of several ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
26 1
design issues, nonconservative interpretation of NRC 2
regulations, and weaknesses in operator performance, 3
corrective actions, and management oversight.
4 Crystal River was classif'ed as a Category 2 plant 5
after the January 1997 senior management meeting.
At the 6
June 1997 senior management meeting, senior NRC management 7
acknowledged that the plant was in an extensive shutdown, 8
that significant work was still needed before restart,'and 9
the plant remained on the watch list in a Category 2 status.
10 Since the June 1997 senior management meeting, 11 overall performance at Crystal River improved, and Florida 12 Power Corporation made substantive progress.
The program 13 design control, 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations, and corrective 14 actions were inspected by the NRC and were considered 15 adequate to support restart of Crystal River.
16 In addition, the NRC conducted team inspections in 17 the areas of emergency operating procedures, engineering and 18 modifications, and operational readiness with satisfactory 19 results.
The necessary license amendments were submitted by 20 Florida' Power Corporation and were reviewed and approved by 21 the NRC.
22 At the January 1998 senior management meeting, 23 senior NRC management acknowledged that Crystal River had 24 made substantial progress, but the conduct of a successful 25 startup and a successful plant operation performance remain ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
27 1
to be demonstrated Therefore, the plant remained in the 2
watch list as a Category II plant.
Since the January 1998 senior management meeting, 3
4 Crystal River conducted a successful startup, sustained 5
operations, and has demonstrated continued performance
]
6 improvement.
The Crystal River management team has improved 7
material condition, management oversight and effectiveness, 8
and operator training.
As a result, all the criteria of the 9
NRC removal matrix have been met.
Therefore, the senior 10 managers recommend that Crystal River be removed from the 11 NRC watch list as a Category 2 plant.
12 That concludes my remarks, and I'll entertain any 13 questions.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Are there any performance areas 15 that you continue to monitor more than others?
16 MR. REYES:
We have the normal oversight in terms 17 of inspections.
We are putting a lot of emphasis in the 18 operations area.
During this shutdown period from '96 until 19 the unit started up, the Agency put a lot of effort into the 20 50.59 modifications, the walkaswus of the sy;tems, and the 21 corrective actions.
22 Since the plan started, we have concentrated our 23 efforts now in the operations area.
The licensee has a very 24 proactive program to improve that area.
We're supporting 25 the schedule for additional operator licenses that's l
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
)
28 1
currently scheduled for January.
We recently gave an exam 2
in June which they received more licenses.
So other than 3
monitoring their operations action plan, nothing unusual.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
5 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I remember that substantial 6
changes are being made the last two years in the engineering 7
organization.
Could you update us on the status?
Did it 8
settle down or --
9 MR. REYES:
Yes.
A couple of points that are 10 relevant.
The company did a significant change on the 11 different processes that they had for handling engineering 12 issues, whether it was 50.59 design modifications of 13 different levels.
That remains in place, a very strong 14 process.
We have monitored that many times.
15 The outcomes of products of that process remain 16 good.
The management, the engineer skills, the inventory of 17 skills remain very strong.
They have experienced some minor 18 losses in terms of numbers.
But in terms of the quality of 19 the products coming out and the inventory of engineering 20 skills that they have, that remains very good.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Thank you.
22 MR. REYES:
Thank you.
23 MR. COLLINS:
That concludes the remarks on Region 24 II facilities.
25 At this time I'd like to proceed with Dr. Carl ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington',
D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
29 1
Paperiello, the acting Region III regional administrator, 2
who will discuss Zion, LaSalle, Clinton, Dresden, Quad 3
Cities and D.C. Cook.
4 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Good afternoon, Madame Chairman 5
and Commissioners.
6 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Are you sure you would rather 7
not be in NMSS?
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
The rest of you can go home.
9 Anyway.
10 DR. PAPERIELLO:
I would like to briefly mention 11 Zion.
In January of 1998, Commonwealth Edison decided to 12 cease operation of Zion.
Since the licensee is no 13 authorized to operate the facility, Zion was 14 administratively removed from the Watch List.
15 Dresden.
Dresden has been on the Watch List since 16 January of 1992.
Senior managers evaluated Dresden 17 Station's performance against the Watch List removal matrix 18 criteria, attention being given in particular to sustain 19 successful performance.
20 Since the last Senior Management Meeting, overall 21 plant performance has improved substantially based on 22 indicators such as improved conduct of operations and plant 23 material condition.
However, since December of 1997, there 24 have been six SCRAMS.
We focused on these SCRAMS and 25 debated potential insights that could be drawn concerning I
]
l i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
l t
30 1
the overall performance of the site.
We noted that safe I
2 dual unit operations had been achieved since the last Senior j
i 3
Management Meeting and that the SCRAMS were generally the 4
result of historical problems.
]
i 3'
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Let me ask you a question about 6
that.
7 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Yes.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Has the licensee effectively 9
addressed the issue of performing surveillance with 10 half-SCRAM conditions?
11 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Which was a contributor to some 13 of the recent trips?
14 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Yes, they have.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And what have they done to 16 effectively address the issue?
17 DR. PAPERIELLO:
They have reduced the -- they 18 have created procedures to avoid, reducing the time they 19 spent in half-SCRAMS.
They are looking at the SILs, the 20 Service Information Letters put out by General Electric to 21 see things that they might have overlooked.
They dropped 22 out of the BWR Owners Group SCRAM Reduction Program in 1990.
23 They are looking at the things that they overlooked and are 24 implementing the things that'were overlooked in that i
25 program.
And, of coursa, the continual focus on the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
31 1
material condition.of the plant, because some of these 2
things were related to just material condition.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
4 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Have they done the same 5
thing at LaSalle?
I saw in some of the startup notices that 6
it was implied that they had, on this half-SCRAM issue, 7
whatever, that they have pro-actively dealt with that before 8
starting up.
Is that the case?
At LaSalle, with the BWR.
9 DR. PAPERIELLO:
At LaSalle they have done it, 10 yes.
11 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
They have done it.
12 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Yes.
That was -- they looked at 13 that.
That was a lesson learned and we addressed that in 14 the recent --
15 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Startup.
16 DR. PAPERIELLO:
-- look at startup for LaSalle.
17 Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Good.
19 DR. PAPERIELLO:
It was noted that operator 20 performance during the SCRAMS was good, and the plant 21 equipment responded as designed during the SCRAMS, 22 minimizing the challenge to operators.
In addition, due the 23 general lack of equipment problems during these transients, 24 we gained greater confidence in the reliability of mitigated 25 equipment.
We concluded that Dresden has sufficiently ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l-
32 1
demonstrated sustained successful plant performance to meet 2
the removal matrix criteria.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Did Dresden meet all of the 4
removal matrix criteria?
5 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Yes, they had.
That was the only 6
issue that was really debated, is whether they had 7
demonstrated sustained performance.
8 MR. CALLAN:
Let me clarify the record.
As you 9
know, the Region prepares, fills out the removal matrix 10 independent of the senior managers, and the Region had 11 indicated that they had not met the sustained performance 12 standard for Dresden, and that is what launched this debate 13 that Carl mentioned.
We spent most of our time focusing on 14 that very subject.
15 MR. REYES:
Right.
16 MR. CALLAN:
The senior managers arrived at a 17 different conclusion.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Is the first time that that has 19 happened?
20 MR. CALLAN:
Well, actually, ironically somewhat, 21 last January, if you recall, it was just the opposite.
The 22 Region had said that Dresden met the removal matrix and the 23 senior managers said they had not.
So we just reversed the 24 role.
25 So that kind of tension -- or not tension, but ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATESc LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 w__-__-_---_-__-______--__
i 33 1
checks and balances between the Region's efforts and the 2
senior managers, I think is very healthy.
It focuses our 3
attention on areas that we need to talk about and debate.
{
4 And it led to a very robust discussion.
I think we really 5
thrashed out the issueF and arrived at the right answer.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Has there been any 7
movement of resources from Dresden to Quad Citier or 8
LaSalle?
9' DR. PAPERIELLO:
Removal?
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Movement of resources.
11 DR. PAPERIELLO:
I have not seen it in an adverse 12 sense.
There is a lot more activity within the Commonwealth 13 system to ensure that lessons learned at one plant, those 14 kind of resources and that information goes from one plant 15 to another.
But I have not seen movement of physical cnr 16 people resources among the plants, in other words, shifting.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
How did you deal with this 18 issue of the cyclical performance in the Commonwealth system 19 and the impact of one part on the other?
)
1 20 MR. COLLINS:
Right.
1 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Could you --
22 MR. COLLINS:
Chairman, as you know, just'for a 23 point of clarification, Mr Steve Perry, who was a former 24 senior individual at Dresden, has moved as a result of the l
25 reorganization.
He is over multiple sites now.
He is not ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
{
4 34 1
specifically over an individual site.
And there is a new 2
Plant Manager who previously was the Assistant Plant 3
Manager.
We have not seen any change in performance as a 4
result of that shift at the Dresden site.
5 DR. PAPERIELLO:
No.
6 MR. COLLINS:
In direct answer to your question, 7
as you know, we had the Staff Requirements Memorandum 98-70, 8
which asks us to consider Commonwealth Edison's system-wide 9
performance and make that a focus of the Senior Management 10 Meeting process until sustained improvement was achieved.
11 What we did at this Senior Management Meeting is 12 we focused on what amounts to the limited, measurable 13 progress, just because of the span of time since their most 14 recent activities with the multiple changes both 15 organizationally, as well as internally with the 16 Commonwealth system.
Those changes are being tracked 17 specifically by Region 3 as part of the effort to review
'18 what is now deemed to be the Strategic Reform Initiatives, 19 which superseded those initiatives that the licensee, 20 Commonwealth, indicated they were going to perform, and they 21 provided that information to us previously as a result of 22 the 5054 (f) letter.
23 So, in summary, the Strategic Reform Initiatives 24 have superseded the response to the 5054 (f) letter.
We are 25 now tracking those.
Those are fairly new.
There's limited, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
35 1
measurable progress, although we have tested some of those.
I 2
Since the last Senior Management Meeting there's a 3
. number of plant changes, though.
As you know, LaSalle has 4
remained shut down.
However, Region 3 has lifted the 5
Confirmatory Action Letter for LaSalle.
6 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Right.
7 MR. COLLINS:
For -- excuse me, for LaSalle, and 1
8 the restart is scheduled sometime later this summer.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Actually, I am kind of asking a 10 slightly different question.
11 MR. COLLINS:
Okay.
12 CRAIRMAN JACKSON:
Which is more, how did you make 13 the decision on the specific plant, namely, Dresden?
14 MR. COLLINS:
Oh, I'm sorry.
15 CHAIRMAN JA T. SON:
Within the context --
16 MR. COLLINS:
Right.
17 MR. CALLAN:
Let me.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- of the Commission's 19 direction to consider the system-wide performance.
20 MR. COLLINS:
I misunderstood.
21 MR. CALLAN:
That's actually probably a more 22 important question than you probably intended, Chairman.
23 Because we made a distinction.
What we didn't say was that 24
-.we did not say the senior managers have absolute 25 confidence or even high confidence that cyclic performance ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
36 1
is a thing of the past.
What we did say was that the senior 2
managers had developed sufficient confidence in the 3
licensee's processes for detecting and engaging cyclic 4
performance and correcting it.
5 So the decision, the context for the Dresden 6
. decision was based upon that backdrop of our improved 7
confidence in the licensee's processes for maintaining 8
oversight over the remaining five operating stations and 9
their ability to track performance, largely through the 10 SRIs, the Strategic Reform Initiatives, which supplanted the 11 older indicators.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, given that the SRIs -- I 13 guess, let me try to make the question a just a little bit 14 more specific again.
Given that the SRIs, or some subset of 15 them that were relevant from our perspective, in a safety 16 sense, are meant to address systemic issues, you made the 17 judgment based on your analysis and review of the record, 18 that none of those systemic issues that are the subject of the SRIs had impact on Dresden Station?
19 20 MR. CALLAN:
That's right.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
That's the question I am 22 talking about.
23 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
That's true.
As well as 24 looking at other sites to ensure that, as a result of 25 Dresden's performance, which -- what amounted to result in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
i 37 l
l 1
it coming off the list, there wasn't a negative impact on 2
other sites.
I
-3 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Right.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
5 MR. COLLINS:
And that's a list of sites which is 6
Quad Cities, LaSalle.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
l 8
MR. COLLINS:
That's how we articulated.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
All right.
10 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
But now I have a question.
Eli This -- you know, you talk about strategic performance and 12 cyclic performance.
We are not confusing this with 13
-corporate assessment of the -- you know, I mean we are 14 looking at the plants themselves, how they perform, and how 15 resources impact on them.
And that's where you are talking l
16 about strategic performance, it is not corporate assessment.
)
17 MR. CALLAN:
Right.
18 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
That's correct.
.19 i
MR. CALLAN:
Yes, Commissioner, it is.
In fact, 20 all the indicators that'we use, whether the old indicators 21 or-the more recent SRIs, are all indicators of actual
'22 performance and we are not assessing corporate management, 23 per se.
I 24 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Okay.
Thank you.
25 MR. CALLAN:
We are looking at results.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
38 1-CHAIRMAN. JACKSON:
Right.
2 DR. PAPERIELLO:
I am not sure where I am.
Much 3
of what I was going to say, we deliberated on Dresden's 4
improved performance in conjunction with the Agency's 5
concerns with Commonwealth systemwide performance and the 6
performance at other Commonwealth nuclear facilities, 7
specifically Quad Cities.
8 While systemwide performance remains an area of 9
focus, we concluded that Commonwealth Edison's support and 10 oversight of Dresden was adequate to support continued 11 sustained plant performance, and we concluded that the site 12 had individually achieved the level of performance during 13 the last 12 months to support removal from the watch list.
14 Finally, we express greater confidence in 15 Commonwealth Edison's ability to monitor and address cyclic 16 performance.
We --
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
What tells you that their 18 ability is better to monitor and address that?
19 DR. PAPERIELLO:
A fairly extensive set of 20 performance indicators that they now have which they have 21 not had before, among other things.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
23 DR. PAPERIELLO:
And an oversight group that 24 appears to be, you know, finding problems and acting on 25 them.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
d 39 1
MR. CALLAN:
The NRC staff in effect independently i
2 validates the licensee's process through our oversight
-- we
{
I 3
have a standing oversight committee that also independently j
i 4
tracks performance, and they meet at some periodicity.
l 5
DR. PAPERIELLO:
About every six weeks.
l 6
MR. CALLAN:
Every six weeks or so.
It's fairly
(
7 labor-intensive.
)
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
How much of the change is 9
driven from the top versus having been inculcated through 10 various levels of the staff?
Not our staff, their staff.
11 DR. PAPERIELLO:
I think a lot has been driven 12 from the top, but my perception, looking at. individual, you 13 know, performance, is the staff at the plants generally 14 recognizes the need to change.
I think that has clearly 15 been -- again, I'm very cautious about a single visit.
16 But I go by my recollection of Dresden when I was 17 deputy regional adminis,trator a number of years ago, and the 18 way the plant appears now -- not just appears, but the 19 interaction with the people.
And I certainly feel there's 20 been a real change in people's approach at the plant.
The 21 operators clearly that I spoke to had a very positive 22 attitude and that they were in charge and the plant was 23 certainly a more reliable plant today than it was in the 24 past.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Thank you.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l
Washington, D.C.
20036 I
(202) 842-0034
40 1
MR. COLLINS:
Chairman, I think that realistically 2
that answer varies site to site, and Commonwealth Edison 3
with their multiple sites, each site has a very different 4
set of dynamics and personality.
Dresden, for example, 5
which I can only speak to because of the previous review 6
that I did there with a team from Region IV, had a very 7
strong site management:
Steve Perry, Mike Hefley, other 8
individuals who essentially drove that site with the same 9
type of corporate oversight that other sites were less 10 successful with.
1 11 The Dresden that we see coming off the list is l
12 really not a manifestation of the most recent high-level 13 organizational changes as a continuation of the improvements 14 that were made as a result of previous site management l
15 initiatives.
So it varies from site to site to my mind.
l l
16 Some of the existing sites probably need this higher-level l
l 17 offsite impetus to have those same types of improvements.
l 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I'm more concerned that 19 the results you see reflect that it's not a thin layer.
20 MR. COLLINS:
I understand.
l 21 MR. CALLAN:
But, you know, just a somewhat 22 anecdotal comment, but the one area where at Dresden this 23 change that you talked about took hold early and has been 24 lasting has been in the control room with the operators.
25 And even as recent -- long ago as when you led that team, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
l L.......
.I
41 1
Sam --
2 MR. COLLINS:
They were the lead organization.
3 MR. CALLAN:
Yes.
And r; that has always been an 4
encouraging sign, that they were able o get that kind of 5
leadership from the control room.
And it spreads, but it 6
sometimes spreads slowly.
But there's a foothold, a 7
beachhead at least in that very critical area.
8 DR. PAPERIELLO:
We concluded that overall 9
Commonwealth Edison had taken effective corrective action to l
10 correct identified problems and improve operational safety 11 performance at Dresden; that the site had individually 12 achieved a level of performance to support its removal from 13 the watch list.
Therefore, the senior managers determined 14 an enhanced level of regulatory monitoring is no longer 15 warranted.
Dresden was classified as a Category 3 facility.
1 16 LaSalle.
LaSalle has been shut down since l
l 17 September 1996, and on the NRC watch list since January of l
18 1997.
The senior managers evaluated the LaSalle Station 19 using the watch list removal matrix.
Although the licensee 20 is making significant progress towards resolving' historical 21 performance problems, particularly in correcting material 22 deficiencies, improvements are still in the early stages and 23 have not been in place long enough to be either assessed or 24 shown to be self-sustaining.
l 25 The licensee has made sufficient progress to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025' Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 I
(202) 842-0034
42 1
support unit restart.
However, improvements in operator 2
performance including procedure adherence have not yet been 3
fully demonstrated in actual operation.
Consistent and 4
effective root-cause analysis still relies heavily on 5
oversight organizations, and substantial nonoutage i
6 maintenance backlogs exist.
7 Both units have remained shut down since September 8
1996, and thus sustained successful plant performance has 9
not yet been demonstrated.
Also, as a result of the 10 extended outage on both units, performance indicators 11 provide limited insights regarding performance trends.
The 12 senior managers decided that LaSalle would remain a watch 13 list Category 2 facility.
]
1 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Are there significant hardware 15.
impediments which from our perspective need to be addressed 16*
before the startup of the second unit?
17 DR. PAPERIELLO:
No.
Oh, I'm sorry, Unit 2?
Many 18 of the material upgrades that were undertaken on Unit i need 19 to be undertaken on Unit 2, and it is anticipated they'll 20 take about six months.
I 21 CRAIRMAN JACKSON:
And on Unit 1, are there 22 specific indicators that we're particularly tracking in 23 terms of indicating performance?
24 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Yes, there would be.
We would, 25 you-know, it would be -- what we're looking --
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 1
43 1
CHAIRMAN. JACKSON:
I mean relative to the problems 2
at LaCalle specifically.
3 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Yes, it would be things with 4
engineering -- there's engineering backlogs of work, there 5
is maintenance backlogs of work.
These are sort of morr 6
output indicators than performance indicators -- I mean 7
outcome indicators.
The' outcomes would be, when the unit 8
starts, reliable performance, absence of operator errors, 9
absence of procedure nonadherence, absence of transients.
10 So they would be the indicators that we would be looking 11 for, sustained performance that would allow us then to say 12 that this plant should be removed from the watch list.
13 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Now that all the CALs have 14 been removed from LaSalle, is there any other pending 15 routine regulatory action that has to be clear on LaSalle, 16 or is --
17 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Commissioner, not that I'm aware 18 of.
I mean, in terras of starting up Unit 1, it's -- when 19 they -- I think we're looking at the 30th.
20 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Okay.
21 MR. COLLINS:
There is one issue which is very 22 contemporary which perhaps might be talked to here.
That's 23 Generic Letter 96-06, which has to do with qualification of l
24 certain components.
That's a licensing decision.
And Donna 25 Shay, who's headira that up for NRR, has indicated that we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20035 (202) 842-0034
p.w...
--.x--
44 1
have come to a conclusion on that, but it's very recently.
1 It's as early as today.
3-COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I see.
Okay.
But outside i
4 that there is no other regulatory action, pending CALs, 5
whatever, nothing.
6 MR. COLLINS:
My understanding is that they are 7
released to start up under the normal processes once they l
8 meet their license requirements.
9 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
So they are under normal 10 processes now.
Okay.
Thank you.
l I
11
-CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Go on.
l 12' DR. PAPERIELLO:
Quad Cities,.
13
. Quad Cities was identified as having a declining 14 trend at the last senior management meeting.
Observations 15 of plant performance have been mixed.
Both units at Quad 16 Cities restarted at the end of May after a long dual-unit 17 outage to reestablish Appendix R safe-shutdown paths, 18 Subsequent to the restart there were several power 19 reductions and two scrams, due in part to material condition
}
20 issues..
While operational performance demonstrated 21 improvement since the extended outage, operations personnel 22 had been involved in several missed technical specification 23 surveillance.
i f
L 24 Also, while the material condition of the p'. ant i
25 improved and the backlog was reduced, there were some ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
. m
45 1
significant maintenance errors and some concerns with 2
emergency diesel generator reliability.
The quality and l
3 safety organization was active in improving the performance 4
in the corrective action program.
However, the licensee 5
failed to address some longstanding issues.
4 1
6 The sense of NRC Senior Managers was that Quad 7
Cities' performance was mixed with slow improvement in some l
8 areas, while a decline in some performance indicator trends 9
was detected.
We decided that there were not sufficient 10 operational data or inspection insights available to assess 11 the overall performance trend at Quad Cities.
12 Consequently, we could not conclude that the 13 adverse trend at Quad Cities had been arrested.
l 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
What are the most significant l
15 areas or items of concern at Quad Cities?
l 16 DR. PAPERIELLO:
One, the plant has to run 17 reliably without transients, which would indicate that the 18 material condition has improved.
We really only had about 19 six weeks between startup.
20 Their fire protection -- they restarted -- the l
21 fire protection IPE shows a relatively high risA. in the l
22 order of three times 10 to the -- or five times 10 to the L
23 minus 3, which they now believe is more like -- 10 to the l
24
.minus 3 -- right.
25 MR. COLLINS:
That was -- just for clarification, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
46 l'
that was prior to a subsequent shutdown and the conduct of 2
nany modifications and process improvements, so that was a 3
number which prompted licensee action.
That is not the 4
current analysis.
5 DR. PAPERIELLO:
But the external events IPE shows 6
much greater IPE shows much greater risk in the internal 7
events.
The plant has started up with short-term corrective 8
actions to make the shutdown under Appendix R effective.
9 They still have to develop a long-term program for fire 10 protection, to fix some of these problems that exist because 11 many offthe fixes right now are interim and in terms of risk 12 space, that probably represents some of the. greater risks 13 for the plant.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
There was an issue I thought 15 with Quad Cities, and I don't want to get into an extended 16 fire protection discussion, but there was an issue having to 17 do with exemptions and how they played off against each l
18 other in potentially exacerbating fire protection issues at' 19 Quad Cities.
20 Has that been resolved?
21 MR. COLLINS:
The issue that I am familiar with 22 that is similar would be across-unit dependency having to do 23 with safe shutdown capability and the subsequent exemptions 24 which complicated the ability to perform that in a 25 demonstratable manner.
i l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
4 47 1
That has;been temporarily compensated for by 2
modifications to the plant and compensatory measures.
The 3
permanent fix is still under evaluation for final 4
engineering and application,'and the plant was restarted 5
after a subsequent review of those interim measures.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Now who is doing that review?
7 This is a review the licensee is doing or we are reviewing 8
something that they have proposed?
9 MR. COLLINS:
The review is -- it's a two-stage 10 review.
The licensee is determining what is necessary to 11 provide for a permanent fix.
That is their internal review 12 and the Staff will subsequently review that to ensure it 13 meets our requirements.
That plant has a very unique 14 licensing basis in the fire protection area.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So what kind of timeline are we 16 on relative to the resolution of that?
17 MR. COLLINS:
I don't know that.
I don't have 18 that information.
We'can certainly get you that.
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right --
20 MR. COLLINS:
There was a commitment, I'm sure, 21 for restart but I don't have that number.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Go ahead.
23 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Clinton -- Clinton has been shut 24 down since September, 1996 and placed on the NRC Watch List i
1 25 in January of 1998.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 L
48 1
During the January 1998 Senior Management Meeting, 2
NRC Senior Managers were concerned with the lack of progress 3
by the licensee in developing a comprehensive plan to 4
address performance deficiencies.
5 While some performance improvements have been 6
noted since the January, 1998 meeting, it has been 7
inconsistent in some areas and is not yet self-sustaining.
8 We noted that licensee initiatives to complete human and 9
hardware improvements.
We noted that while management 10 oversight at the facility had improved, and a new 11 comprehensive recovery plan and corrective action program 12 had been developed, equipment condition and human 13 performance problems continued to surface, indicating that 14 these programs were still in the early stages to 15 implementation.,
16 The preventive and corrective maintenance item l
17 backlog has grown during the extended outage and remains 18 large.
Progress in correcting material condition issues has 19 been slowed by newly identified and recurring material 20 condition problems.
21 A new work control process has been implemented 22 but is not yet effective in ensuring proper prioritization 1
23 and accomplishment of work.
24 Performance improvement initiatives addressed in 25 these and other areas are contained in Clinton's Plan for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
49 1
Excellence.
However, implementation has only recently begun 2
and the plan remains to be fully implemented and requires 3
continued monitoring.
4 We decided that there was a continued need for 5
h4 3h level NRC attention at this site.
Based on these 6
considerations, Senior Managers decided that Clinton remains 7
a Category 2 facility.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
In evaluating Clinton restart, 9
do we have a comprehensive list of concerns as has been 10 prepared for other facilities under 0350?
11 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Yes.
We have an 0350 Panel 4 for 1
12' Clinton.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And how does that comport with 14 items in the licensee's Plan for Excellence?
15 DR. PAPERIELLO:
What we do is we are following 16 the licensee's corrective action plan for all the hardware 17 and the human performance deficiencies, the problems that 18 have to be corrected prior to startup, and we inspect to see 19 whether that is done and whether they are following in their 20 review of their actions as adequate.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
That is not quite what I asked.
l 22 You told me that we have a comprehensive list of 23 concerns vis-a-vis eva3uating restart that's similar to what 24 we.have for all --
25 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Right.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 t
50 1
CHAIRMAN. JACKSON:
-- facilities, subject to the l
2 0350 process.
3 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Right.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
So that my question was that in 5
the licensee's Plan for Excellence, do the two -- is the one 6
list at least subsumed in the other?
You know, do they 7
comport?
8 MR. CALLAN:
Chairman, they comport.
They are 9
congruent, but as you would expect, the licensee's Plan for 1
10 Excellence -- I'm sure I would be surprised if it didn't go 11 well beyond --
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I am not asking that question.
13 When I say " comport" -- when I say does one subsume the 1
14 other, the issue is if we have a list --
I j
15 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Right.
16 MR. CALLAN:
That's right.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- and they have a Plan for 18 Excellence --
19 MR. CALLAN:
Right.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- you know, is one over in 21 this part of space and the other over in that part, or is l
l l
22 one subsumed?
I am not saying that our regulatory decision 23 on restart is based on every item in their plan, but does 24 their plan cover our issues?
25 MR. COLLINS:
The 0350 process provides for that.
~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
]
1925 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 1
51 1
CHAIRMAN : JACKSON:
Okay.
That's all I wanted to 2.
know.
3 MR. COLLINS:
And in fact the meetings with the 4
licensees with the 0350 panel is to go through those lists, 5
and ensure there is an understanding of what are the 6
regulatory requirements that fit into the licensee's list, 7
where there is overlap and where there is exclusion.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
I just asked because the 9
way you described it, you described a Plan for Excellence 10 over here.
You described concerns over there.
The issue 11 how does -- our concerns, are they being addressed?
12 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Yes, but I want to clarify 13 something.
I don't want to mislead the Commission.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
15 DR. PAPERIELLO:
And the situation -- it's very 16 dynamic.
17 We sent them a 5054 (f).
They responded to that 18 about a month ago and at the same time we exchanged with 19 them our view of the< issues in the 0350 process, 20 The three pieces are their plan, their very l
21 detailed plans for restart, our 0350 plan, and their
{
l 22 response to the demand for information, which was in large 23 part the plan for excellence.
24 In the middle of t'his past month we have been 25 reviewing all that to make sure everything comes together.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
I 52 1
And right now, as of this moment, I don't know whether 2
everybody has decided that everything matches item for item.
3 Now, maybe -- I just don't know, I mean, because it has been 4
dynamic in the last three days.
5 MR. CALLAN:
The process allows for that.
The '
6 process will account for that.
7 MR. COLLINS:
As it develops.
8 MR. CALLAN:
As it develops,.right.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Commissioner.
I 10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Is there a restart date 11 for Clinton that they have -- that the licensee has proposed 12 that you all are working toward now?
In many of the other 13 plants, LaSalle, you know, you said it was approximately six 14 months for Unit 2.
15 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Right.
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Is there a similar date 17 in the case of Clinton?
18 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Well, they expect the plant to 19 startup near the end of the year.
20 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
The end of the year.
21 That's all I was asking.
22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Have they bounded the problem?
23 DR. PAPERIELLO:
We think they have, yes.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
4 25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
In some sence -- the i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
-(202) 842-0034 L
53 1
other comment I will make.
In some sense, the discussion we 2.
get into on some of these plants that are in Category 2 and 3
haven't operated yet is very straightforward.
In Management 4
Directive 8.14, there is a criterion that they have to have 5
operated for some period of time and had reasonably good 6
performance.
And we took Crystal River off, we took Salem 7
off, et cetera, because they demonstrated that.
8 For the plants that aren't operating yet, and it's 9
-- you know, you can discuss them and talk about them, and 10 what resources we have to put into them, but it's a i
11 no-brainer that they don't come off the list.
It's -- so, I 12
-- and I don't know whether -- at times I get a little I
13 concerned about turning this meeting, you know, where the
]
14 decision you faced was this, Does it meet the criteria to 15 come off the list?
The answer is no.
To turn this meeting 16 into then a mechanism for discussing the plants, because I 17 think the more effective mechanism is when we have comment 18 or whoever, across the table, and --
I 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Maybe we need to get Clinton 20 across the table then.
21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Well, if necessary.
We 22 did that with Salem.
We didn't do it with Crystal River.
I 23 think it is a question of whether the staff, you know, or we l
24 feel that that's -- you know, each time, whether that is l
25 necessary.
I think it's each case --
L t
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 j
54 1
CHAIRMAN. JACKSON:
Well, I think Clinton is a 2
particular case.
There has been some question about the' 3
bounding of the issues.
And to the extent that Carl lays 4
out what the items were that went into their decisions and 5
their discussions, then it is fair game for discussion, 6
unless we choose to have a Commission meeting specifically 7
on Clinton, so.
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
Could I also --
9 the role that PECO has at Clinton.
They were planning to 10 bring some additional people in.
Is the full PECO team 11 resident at Clinton now, that they were planning to bring?
12 DR. PAPERIELLO:
There is a Philadelphia Electric 13 team at Clinton.
I am not quite sure whether you would call 14 it a full team.
It's I think about eight or nine 15 individuals, at least at the top.
And my sense is it has 16 made a difference.
17 There have been three startup plans, so this plan 18 for excellence is the third plan, it was the plan that the 19 PECO team developed.
In discussions with them, it is the 20 only -- apparently, it is the most detailed plan that nas 21 existed, and I have looked at it, I mean I don't know 22 whether it will be successful, but at least there is a plan, 23 a very exhaustive plan to correct all the known problems by 24 a given date and to achieve a startup.
Insofar as that 25 exists, you know, I can say that exists.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
L 55 l
1 But in the last six months, since the last 2
meeting, there have been problems identified, and there have 3
been, you know, people who have made mistakes while doing 4
certain things.
Maintenance people have done things they 5
shouldn't have done and made things fail.
Operators have 6
overlooked significant indicators in a control room.
So 7
there are things to discuss.
8 Even though a plant is not starting up, it is more 9
than just saying, okay, they fixed this quantity of -- I 10 mean we do look at the performance indicators on engineering 11 backlogs and maintenance backlogs and things like that.
But 12 there are also inspection observations and events that you 13 will analyze that give you indications and insights on how 14 the staff is, you know, the people are performing.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
16 MR. COLLINS:
Commissioner McGaffigan, Mr.
17 MacFarland indicates by a head nod that the full team is on I
18 site.
19 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
21 MR. MacFARLAND:
That's nine players.
'22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Go ahead.
23 DR. PAPERIELLO:
D.C. Cook.
D.C.
Cook was 24 discussed for the first time at this Senior Management 25 Meeting.
Both units have been shut down since September ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
.L____________
a
56 1
1997 due to operability issues identified during an August 2
1997 architecture and engineering inspection involving 3
inadequate design control, 50.59 evaluations and 4
calculations.
5 Subsequent inspections identified problems with 6
fibrous material blocking recirculation sumps, operability 7
of containment hydrogen recombiners and the distributed 8
ignition system, and restricted flow of containment spray.
9 Of particular note were the significant material condition 10 problems associated with the ice condenser identified in a 11 February 1998 inspection which led to the plant operating 12 outside of its design basis for an indeterminate period.
13 After this inspection, it was clear that the 14 magnitude of the problems was broader than the findings of 15 the AE inspection.
16 The discussions of the NRC senior managers 17 primarily focused on the risk significance of the 18 engineering design and material condition issues.
We also 19 noted that the performance indicators and licensee event 20 report data revealed a declining trend, performance trend, 21 in the first quarter of 1998.
The NRC senior managers 22 acknowledge the risk significance of the containment 23 deficiencies and other material condition problems.
24 The NRC senior managers concluded that additional 25 information was necessary before the agency could determine ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut.\\ venue, NW, Suite 1014 Washingtto, D.C.
20036 (202, 842-0034
57 1
that the problems a.t D.C.
Cook are limited to the 2
engineering and surveillance areas.
NRC response to D.C.
3 Cook's ongoing programmatic and functional area 4
self-assessments and plant verification reviews was 5
discussed, and NRC senior management concluded that 6
additional inspection activities are warranted in these 7
areas.
8 We determined that there has been a slow decline 9
in the performance at D.C. Cook.
This performance decline, 10 in combination with the risk significant engineering and 11 surveillance issues identified over the past several months 12 indicates the need for D.C. Cook management to continue to 33 implement appropriate actions to ensure that the extent of 14 the problems is fully understood and corrected.
15 After considering this information, the senior 16 managers agreed that a Trending Letter was appropriate to
)
17 convey the agency's concern with D.C. Cook's recent
]
18 performance.
19 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Yes.
I'm trying to understand 20 better the interface between our normal processes and the 21 Senior Management Meeting.
22 DR. PAPERIELLO:
Right.
L 23 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I believe that the intention 24 of the Commission, when the Senior Management Meeting was l
25 established, was not to create a de facto Category 1.5 with I
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l
(202) 842-0034 l'
I t
58 l
1 1
the Trending Letter, to just have the Trending Letter to 1
2' actually be very responsive to what the senior management i
3 objectives were.
Could you go a little bit deeper to 4
explain why does D.C.
Cook, after all of the normal efforts 5
that have been taken by the agency to ensure adequate 6
protection, and all of the inspections and so forth, why is 7
a Trending Letter necessary besides everything else that we 8
have done?
9 MR. COLLINS:
I think we can.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Who is going to speak to that?
11 MR. CALLAN:
Let me address that.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
13 MR. CALLAN:
You know, I mean, I suppose that 14 question can be asked for any action we take, and that --
15 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
But specifically on this.
16 MR. CALLAN:
Yes.
Let me just say at the outset 17 that what was striking about the discussion regarding D.C.
18 Cook was, to my knowledge, and I haven't gone back and 19 thrashed this out, but to my knowledge, this is the first 20 time where risk insights were pivotal, where they turned the 21 discussion.
22 The senior managers concluded that the problems at 23 Clinton, as Carl Paperiello indicated, were -- at least the 24 defined problems are relatively narrow in the sense that 25 they affect passive systems, mitigative systems, and largely ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
59 1
are engineering related, without significant problems 2
identified in other areas such as operations and 3
maintenance, health physics, for example.
4 The risk significance of those findings were 5
substantial enough, and I'll just add that it was input from 6
the Office of Research provided by Dr. Knapp -- by the way, l
7 Dr. Knapp is a very fungible manager; at Chicago, he was 8
acting as the director of research -- and also from the 9
Office of AEOD that provided these insights, and'the 10 evidence was compelling that there was, in fact, a declining 11 trend in those objective indicators that related to risk 12 that -- and the data was so compelling that the senior 1
13 managers I think appropriately selected a trending letter as l
14-the appropriate mechanism to convey to the managers.
15 Now, Management Directive 8.14 provides a l
16 definition of what a trending letter is.
I'm not going to 17 read it, but it's intended to --
18 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
No.
19 MR. CALLAN:
-- to alert senior utility managers 20 of our concern, and we had a~ concern that we developed 21 during those discussions that, in our view, needed to be 1
22 conveyed, and it was, by the way, it was a concern that
)
23 didn't necessarily exist before that discussion.
That i
24 concern largely was developed during the discussion due to 25 the input from AEOD and Research.
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 i
60 1
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
This may be related.
I 2
know that you have looked at other ice condenser plants in 3
Region II, and are there any insights -- and apparently not 4
found similar problems -- are there any insights as to why 5
they existed at D.C.
Cook and don't exist in the Region II 6
plants that have been inspected thus far?
7 MR. CALLAN:
Let me ask Luis Reyes to address 8
that.
He has actually looked into that issue.
9 MR. REYES:
We have put an extensive action plan l
10 to look at the remaining seven ice condensers in the United 11 States.
They happen to be in Region II.
So we have taken a 12 hard'look and the same inspectors that are looking at this 13 actually physically went to D.C. Cook, participated in the 14 enforcement conference, and are assisting Region III in the 15 inspections activities in the recovery.
16 So with hands-on personal information, what we 17 have found out, and I am oversimplifying without going into 18 examples, although ultimately we can go to that, is 19 practices in conducting the maintenance of surveillance of 20 this passive system and how the system was treated in that 21 it was treated as a passive system, th'e FSAR description, 22 the features of the system were basically not kept up to 23 standard.
We can go into the examples that show that.
l 24 We have inspected the oldest ice condenser in the l
l 25 Duke system, McGuire Unit I, and have not found similar l
ANN' kLEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
61 1
problems, and whatsI mean is the magnitude of the problem is 2
different.
3 We have-found foreign material kind of issues.
4 There may have been pieces of tape, et cetera, that 5
shouldn't have been there.
But in terms of operability 6
assessment and the significance of those practices, so far, 7
the inspections we have conducted so far have not seen the 8-same magnitude of problems.
9 So it is not a design issue; it's a maintenance 10 and upkeep and surveillance type of issue, how the system 11 was treated.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
I 13 MR. REYES:
I guess I'll ask for more detail.
14 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Yes.
It will be interesting 15' some time to, you know, look a little more at or receive 16-more information on this potential hybrid.
It's passive I
17 from the standpoint of what function needs to be done, but j
l 18 it's really quite an active system as far as maintenance and
}
19 everything else, and that's a very interesting point.
20 MR. CALLAN:
But that's common of many passive 21 systems -- station batteries, no moving parts, but are 22 extremely complex.
23 COMMISSIONER DIAZ.:
Right.
24 MR. REYES:
We do have, and they're available in 25 the Region III Web pictures, the actual findings it D.C.
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 1
62 1
Cook, and they become very -- when you see the pictures, 2
it's clear, the message of the type of issues we're talking, 3
blockage of the flow orifice between the basket by ice and 4
perhaps foreign material, et cetera, et cetera.
5 So we still have a very comprehensive action plan.
6 The next plant to be inspected is one of the Catawba Unit.,
7 which is refueling this outage.
So we have continued with 8
our efforts that will lead us by next year to have completed 9
every unit with a very detailed inspection effort to satisfy 10 ourselves we do not have a similar problem.
11 Now, the utilities affected or that have the ice 12 condenser plant, we have formally transmitted the inspection 13 report with the issues at D.C. Cook.
We have held public 14 meetings with each one of these utilities to address how 15 they have taken all the industry issues on ice condensers 16 and what action plan they're taking to assure themselves 17 they don't have those kind of issues.
And of course, we 18 have a detailed inspection plan that independently we're 19 going to conduct.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
That's very good and it's 21 interesting to have that information because the issue has 22 been raised as to whether we were giving untoward focus to 23 D.C.
Cook --
24 MR. REYES:
Right.
25 CHAIRMAN' JACKSON:
-- as opposed to other ice ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
1 i
J 63 I
condenser containment plants.
And so this --
1 2
MR. REYES:
We also know, based on our visits, 3
that. sister utilities have assisted D.C.
Cook by exchanging 4
information from their system engineers, and in fact, D.C.
l 5
Cook representatives have been present in the public j
6' meetings we have held with the other utilities to gain 7
information for their own benefit of what is transpiring at l
8 the other sites.
9 In addition to that, the first ever meeting of the l
10 ice condenser plants is going to occur.
The system 11 engineers from all the ice condenser plants are going to be l
12 meeting in the near future in one of the Region II i
13 facilities to exchange and provide a forum for benchmarking 14 and share of good practice practices, i
l 15 So there is a lot of activity going on among that I
16 group of plants.
l i
l 17 MR. COLLINS:
Commissioner McGaffigan, we have j
1 18
--of course, Luis' efforts in Region II are very extensive t
l 19 for those sites.
We have a lead project manager assigned --
l 20 Bob Martin -- to this effort, and he's the overall licensing 21 integrator, and he is the focal point to exchange not only 1
22 technical information that comes from vendors at sites, but 23 also to coordinate the regional activities, and he has a 24 complete history as well as many graphics that show he has 25 found conditions at the sites.
So those are available to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
)
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034 l
64 1
you.
2 MR. REYES:
Yes.
The staff has pictures of all 3
the inspections conducted to be able to share with anybody 4
the problem at one plant and how it's treated at the others.
5 It's much easier -- a picture is worth a thousand words, so 6
we have that available.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Have you shared these 8
with David Lochbaum?
9 MR. REYES:
I'm not sure how many we have shared 10 with.
The meetings were public and we have corresponded 11 with several individuals, and I don't know all the people we 12 have shared them.
We'll be glad to share them.
13 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Okay.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Very good.
15 MR. COLLINS:
That concludes the discussion of 16 Region III.
I would like to just make a note, Chairman.
17 You made a previous comment potentially having to do with 18 meetings with Clinton.
Clinton is going to conduct a future 19 0350 panel meeting in headquarters, and that will allow the 20 headquarters organization as well the managers to provide 21 for input into that process, and it will bring the senior 22 managers from the site --
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I may at that time call 24 actually explicitly for a meeting on Clinton and possibly on 25 D.C.
Cook to understand the issues, because, you know, I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
65 1
think it's important to really understand the nexus between 2
what the licensee is doing and what our regulatory 3
requirements are.
4 MR. COLLINS:
Right.
5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
And I'm not satisfied that, you 6
know, we have sufficiently explored it at this meeting.
7 MR. COLLINS:
Okay.
That concludes the briefing 8
on operating reactors.
With Joe's permission, I'll turn the I
9 agenda over to Dr. Mal Knapp, director of the Office of I
'1 10 Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards.
11 MR. CALLAN:
Yes.
And let me just intercept that 12 for a minute.
In your SRM from the last Commission meeting, 13 senior management meeting discussion in January, you had i
i 14 asked the staff to inform the Commission of our process and 15 criteria'for evaluating materials facilities.
16 We have sent a paper up doing that, and we're 17 prepared to give you a thumbnail discussion and sketch, if 18 you want it.
Otherwise, we can --
19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
We'll look at the paper.
20 MR. CALLAN:
Look at the paper.
Okay.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
You're off the hook.
22 Any other questions?
23 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Yes.
Final?
e 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: 'Yes.
25 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Yes.
I just had a very quick ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
66 1
comment.
First, I wanted to recognize that the staff made a 2
great effort in the last two weeks to transition rapidly to 3
this fundamental change that has placed the senior i
4 management meeting under Commisr'.on direct oversight, 5
meaning.that we now have procedures that require consent, 6
and it has been very good to be able to interact with the 7
staff, to be able to have early access to the information.
8 I feel a lot more confident coming to this meeting and j
9 realizing what has been going on, and I just want to thank 10 you all for the good job.
11 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Ditto.
12' CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I want to repeat that 13 based on the information presented the staff has identified 14 sustained performance improvement in the operational margins 15 of safety at the five reactors at the Salem Station, 16 Dresden, and Crystal River.
In every case, the improvement I
17 noted is the result of action by the licensee.
However
)
18 aggressive the NRC may be in identifying the need for 19 improvement, improvement can only be achieved by the 20 14.censees themselves.
21 The role played by the NRC of course is to focus 22 licensee attention by using the appropriate regulatory tool 23 on the need for improvement and corrective actions from a 24 safety point of view.
From that perspective, one could say 25 that NRC involvement has been successful, since none of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
67 1
facilities in question reached the point even for those that
'2 remain on the watch list where public health and safety was 3
directly threatened.
4 In closing, I'd like to touch on one final point 5
which affects the assessment process.
As I mentioned in my 6
opening comments this afternoon, the Agency is continuing to 7
review ways in which we can improve our inspection and 8
assessment programs.
While the review is under way, it is 9
important that both the industry we regulate and the NRC 10 staff do understand that we have programs and processes 11 currently in place.
And while they are not perfect, they're 12 not totally broken and therefore unusable.
13 We still have our health and safety l
14 responsibility, and that means that until as we change the 15 processes but until they change we'll continue to use them 16 even as we improve them.
And therefore I urge the 17 inspection, assessment, and enforcement staffs to 18 continually continue to implement the programs, get with any 19 changes that come from Commission guidance, but to continue 20 to effectively implement existing programs and processes 21 until such time as new methodologies are approved and 1
22 promulgated.
And this kind of change management is 1
23 consistent with what we'd expect to see at any of our
)
l 24 licensed nuclear facilities, and it's the same standard we J
25 should hold ourselves to that's important both in terms of l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 2
84 - b34
4 58 1
doing our jobs but,also from the point of view of regulatory 2
stability.
[
r 3
It's also my expectation that our licensees will 4
avail themselves of existing communication channels with the 5
Agency staff as well as with Members of the Commission to 6
identify specific examples of disagreement with the 7
implementation of existing' policy and programs.
That kind 8
of communication is important as we move through a change.
9 And as I've said, since this may not be the venue for the 10 in-depth discussion of the plants, I am going.to call for a 11 meeting on both the Clinton and the D.C.
Cook plants with 12 the licensees and with the staff who have the oversight 13 responsibility.
14 So unless my colleagues have any further comments, 15 we are adjourned.
16
[Whereupon, at 3:31 p.m.,
the hearing was 17 adjourned.]
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 842-0034
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached description of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING:
BRIEFING ON OPERATING REACTORS AIO FUEL FACILITIES PUBLIC MEETING PLACE OF MEETING:
Rockville, Maryland l
l I
DATE OF MEETING:
Wednesday, July 29, 1998 1
i was held as herein appeare, is a true and accurate record of the meeting, and that this is the original transcript thereof taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court l
l reporting company l
Transcriber:
m owx
/
V sf Reporter: M
(
/
- 11224 V
SR O
TCAER S GE I
N T I
s I
TL r
%)
AI o
t R C a
7 8
r 6E A
9 t
4 s
F 9
s pi P
n n
n n pi 1
aiam
@l.
OL E
l l 9
l l R
ao n A
2 NI CC K d n
O R Y
.A g
L JSMl E
a U
n GT J
o G
q NA g
i e
F 'M e
I R
ED IRN BA C
ID O
IREP
v d
t yd na roieoh gi yt f
et ey t nbf i
ae r
n e Cd ov M
i st i
t o
O ac nt e e d r R
t d T
er t t oa e 3
1 F S acl d n
a e R
3 Y
DI oie L
gt cn E
2 R
E sne V
2 i
VH e o pi 1
N s
I O
OC di s R
t g
ME ycCn L
G M T a
A u eNo A
E D
ls Rir L
S E
ERW oiri T
v t
vc e ns S
AE i t T
Y S
R eeh oe A
SE mun R
D rf t r
pf TH euf i
C NT ot C
e f
n r n ol o ee A
wkNe c
v L
a
.et st sl n P
e et e tna vsnm a se l
r e ph er v ed nuo snk cr ea a p
h e e T2,wh m t i ed
Y r
y L
t e
nd rd EE n
a no e TS n
r agv a y, rasteo AO mtewe ap r
r n
RL af i
c mf d t
at r sio e EC ns a ai h uhf nc P
dt i
R d
qt o oa O
e nsd ndt p l
i 2
O t ae aioa OT ah s enir g r
s t
hi on 2
r Y
TI pa nh mpe e el e a ei 3
i r
N R
DO oekt b
E h a oe at N
et N
1 g cebr sd n O
e l
Z l
i l
eb wa elp T
L G
L b ud o N
I rh e
S L
R L epar t t t I
E OI s
nanuh L
AL f
h nsr rat e ol of L
S C
t T
HW cvip a n I
A T C nt h nAeis M A s
eat m
i t
l L
a o e
.d nl t t C
U R r r t e u
lppotaceu s A N er e i
eygCf ser f
S E et sl n
eiRon ee T H h a vNl e t u a ac cc N
nn3 T
h qhdnl aay i
A gee siemmo e o r
LT ud r
gh r r aa et g
PA oa erl oo i f f e ht yr H
r r t aecetneea t
l hh nh u p pC T
At t i t
T e
C A t
t a
r R H r
a Y
a s t nl at T
eis L
nn et e N DE ob nr i
t G NS a
a ntnmht e aet sv N AO cl d obo if p bu I
r L
n s
R P ne p
i a e p
C gh c vea I
3 UU it ar s
Y QT R geh ut s
d n e s
2 u
ERO aiss n T
h nnmem E
R RAI e a o n s.
N i
ea cr OS TN vt t
nig ou O
l ai h ae oditsa T
GT SO r e st mh ptnis S
NOM r
t o
eem3 L
E AT t
l i
gntanammy L
t L
T L
n I
A P NL uueor r
v qlpC o M
i r
I C
NIOW a an e g
h wod mee aiht i
T et t
W A C Ta i
adt d C
rah n an OZ R t
s oh at a s
t n
N DIR ne n
t c
d ei Cemt sn TO E a swRh Ns e n l
U H H pe v a o
l e n i
l d eb op HT T sk t h r
eaut apa SU t
h eh o smf A
Twst eio
M M
S 899 1
y R
rau E
n T
a J
2 T
e h
E K
1 t
f L
OS o
E t
OI l
G C
T su I
e N
C.
C r
a I
D D
D s
A a
N U
de E
Q us R
st ic T
r e ef t f t e e n l
i gn sn idi a nem r e Tr
DNERT ESREVD E
A N
6 O
F N
O NO IT CERROC a
1ll 1
S E
I T
I L
I C
A F
L A
E IR N
E O
N TA M
Y T
IR O
-