ML20234D332
| ML20234D332 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1987 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709220058 | |
| Download: ML20234D332 (114) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. _ _ _ _ 1 mumumummmessumer : _ mun l l 1 l - - - 1 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' M it %
, ' My /,1' af ! E
~ .w1Jy An w
,e .k', .bp s
, Q:" ' 3jec g+p / J s
- , , p 4 .. .,
f'/ ,/,/ c p-.-.p,-... g.
'/, ~
y
> p~
/
, jM>..,.-
9,_. .,/_' . eyey;:-- n
. y, 5
q 4,g
~
.0 .
- ry%y 4X N ~~,,' N
~y 8 n__2
/
,l[NNAGb!ENT$ENTIN$A,,ON[NlbLIfUOR$0Mbkz0RYN gg.g
/- {yx
/
,r. .l %q,. $.y
,y g s g g. g 3 r..%g y g.
q j'/ i COM1 \ jSSIqMf$TAFF) 1 THE STATg'p
\ \
7 p % . y yDF NEW YORK y . i j f~
~qSU V VOLK-CDUNTE.t-\-L W Q >:-- t '7(
N N - N: h l j j , ,/ Q ,' .,- ,- /. / Nm' . ';x. 1..:; .,. ;b. Oxxs,c amv c
-y{ ,f . I,e 7,-Qy/L-[/,"
.n%e, ,
j-
,- f ;
Naffy/M9 ' 4 * , King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, Friday, May 29, 1987 A management meeting was. held at the offices of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at 631 Park Avenue, at 2:00 - 4:45 p.m., on the above date, before Norma Carr, Court Reporter - Notary Public. i g o6 ' ( o s\ AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. 1115 W A LNUT STREET. SUITE 1.116 PHIL A DELNil A. PA. 19107 (213) Kl 3.700) 8709220058 870529 ~ PDR ADOCK 05000322 T PDR
I 1 APPEARANCES: - l 2 WILLIAM KANE, Director, Di' vision of g Reactor Projects in Region 1 0 3 \ SAMUEL COLLINS, . Deputy Director, 4 Division of' Reactor. Projects
'S JAY GUTIERREZ,.ESQ., Regional Counsel
' '\
Region 1 \
'6 l
CURT COWGILL, Shoreham 1 7 DAH CLAYBORNE, Senior Resident 8 Inspector, Shoreham 9 JAMES WIGGINS, Section' Chief, Region 1 10 WILLIAM JOHNSTON, Divisi'on, Director, Division of Safety ,
. LEE BETTENHAUSEN, Acting-Deput'y .
12 Director, Division of Safety 13 WILLIAM BLUNDERG', Chief, Operational Programs Section 14 MARIE MILLER, Acting State Liaison 15 Officer ^ r 16 LEE ZEUGIN, ESQ., Hunts &-Williams-for Long Island Lighting' Company 17 JACK MACARO, Quality Assurance 18 Manager for Long Island Lighting Company
- 19 JOEL BLAU, Director of Utility 20 Intervention, New York State '
Consumer Protection Doard 21 RICHARD B.'UUBBARD, MHB Associates 22 ALAN DYNNER, ESO., Kirkpatrick & 23 Lockhart, for Suffolk County, N.Y. 24 AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING,'INC. (215) 545-7003
b L 1 --- l 2 HR. .ILANE s- My name in Bill Kane, and I - 3 am Director of the Division of Reactor Projects here 4 in Region 1. ' i i 5 The purpose of the meeting, as , 6 indicated in my letter-of May' 20 to Mr., kessel oi;Pthe , 7 Consumer Protect' ion Board, is to try to undstatand , d' 8 really a couple of issues here which wodve been , 9 talking about for some time. .One, is to get your ., J 10 views on the sc6pe of the inspection that'NRC inten'ds 11 '
~
to do at Shoreham in. response to the'LILCO QA audit c, 12 on training, and,any specific' areas'and issues that } g} 13 you feel need to be reviewed in the inspection.' >4 14 These, we will use in finalizing our inspection. Vo 15 will at least consider'them in' terms o'f finalizing 16 .our inspection plan for this upcoming [ inspection. 17 The other issue that we wanted to 3 18 talk about was the rationale for your. participation
,o 19 in the inspection, and.the degree of' participation 4n 20 terms of the numbers and types of people.that'you:are 21 talking about in that inspection. Oneofthethihys 22 we want to talk about is the contribution-that you 23 see that you might be able to ma}jp to the regional
) 24 staff in terms of conduct of-that inspection, and we6> AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
t 4 9 1 will get into the other issues ~as we get into the' o 4 2 . meeting. 3 Let me first introduce the people who, d 4 are here in the proceeding. It' is now 2:15 on- May
^
5 29, 1987, for the purpose of the record. > 6 To my,right -- 7 MR. COLLINS . Sam Collins, Deputy 8 Director, Division of< Reactor Projects. 9 MR. GUTTIERREZ Jay Gutierrez, 10 Regional Counsel, Region 1. 11 MR. COWGILL: I'm Curt Cowgill. I! am 12 going to be responsible for shoreham. ) 13 MR. CLAYBORNE: I'm Dan Clayborne. 14 I'm the Senior Resident Inspector at Shoreham. 15 HR. WIGGINS 1My name is. Jim Wiggins,
^
16 and I'm the Section Chief here at Region 1'. 17 MR. JOHNSTON: I'm' Bill Johnston. I'm 18 Division Director, Division of Safety. 19 MR. BETTENHAUSEN: I'm Lee
- n. .
,2c 20 Bettenhausen,1 Acting Deputy Director, Division of-21 Safety.
22 MR. BLUMBERG Bill-Blumberg, Chief 23 Operational Programs Section. ) 24 MS. MILLER: Marie Miller, Acting
' AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC.-(215)'545-7003
- - . . - - .___c. .
5
\
't !
1 State' Liaison Officer.- 2 HR. ZBUGXht I'm Lee Zeugin from the 3 Law Firn of Hunts and Willihms representing Long 4 Island Light 1,ng Company', . ,
+ l S ..,. M7ki MACATOr, I'm Jack Macaro, Quality i
6 Assurance'.Hunaged for th'e Long Island Lighting j 1 7 Company. ] , 8 MR. BLAU: I'm Joel Glau. ~ I'm the 1 l l 9 Dir.ect6,r o$jUtility Intervention for ths.New York
- f. 'l , /
l 10 State Considmor Fratection soard. ( 11 ; AR. HUBBARD: I'm E1 chard Hubbard l ! 12 vith MHB' Associates, consultants to the State of New l 13 York. ; 14 MR. DYNNER: I'm Alan Dynner of the,
- . t .
{ l 15 Late Firm of Ki.ekpatrick and Lockhart, counsel for l l l 16 Suffolk Countyk New York. l 17 Mn. KANE: As I understand it, you had 18 a presentat19n-that you were prepared to give to us. 19 ' MR. BL'AU: Yes. The presentation will
, \
20 be by Mr. H6bbard. He will respond to your request-21 for an indicat,lon as to our views of the scope of the 22 inspection a Shoreham e I will turn it~over to l 23 Mr. Hubbard'At tbAs point. l 24 j MRi HUBBARD: That I am going to talk c, T
~
, II ,
ARTA-h1DE FEDERAL MC.?ORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
? .c
6 1 about today is basically summarized in a report that 2 was provided to you in early. November. This is a 3 report that.we did for tho State of New York Consumer 4 Protection Board, and I assume all of you have road 5 and seen copies of that. 6 In today's presentation I would like 7 to go through about 4 areas. First, I would like to 8 discuss the NRC reviews on qualification and training 9 that led up to today's meeting. l 10 Secondly, I would like to talk about 11 the LILCO audit of qualification and training. l 12 Third, I would like to give you my h 13 views of what the current situation is and'what's l l 14 needed. l 15 And fourth, some suggestions for a l 16 protocol of how we can all work cooperatively l 17 together. j 18 To start with though, I think the 19 bottom line from our standpoint, both the state of 20 Now York and also in the past when I represented
'21 Buffolk County, is that training and qualification of 22 personnel are extraordinarily important during the 23 operation of a nuclear plant. Simplistically said, h 24 you can spend millions or billions of dollars to AREA-WIDE F27ERAL~ REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
'7 1 design and construct a plant, but if you don't spend 2 the money and the time to operate it properly, you 3 don't have the assurances that that good design and 4 good construction is intended to provido.
5 We are particularly concerned.about 6 Shoreham for that regard. If you.go back to your i 7 BALP report from last y, ear, you will notice that i 8 there were 32 LER's that had to do with human 1 9 errors. 22 of those had to do with an ESF function, l-10 and 4 of them resulted in a plant. shutdown. nSo those 11 are the type of human errors in this whole training i 12 and qualification that we are very very concerned 13 about. 14 I would like to start by talking 15 about how we got to today's meeting, at least from-16 our point of view; that there was a special 17 inspection by the NRC, and that is set forth in 18 Inspection Report 8603, and in there there were a 19 number of findings about the LILCO radiochemistry 20 program. I think you all are familiar with the 21 results of that audit. That was done last year, 22 January 27 through February 14. 23 One of the key things that was found ) 24 was that many ot the same deficiencies that you.noted 4 l l AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003 !
- . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ol
1 l f 8 + 1 in the program and the implementation of the training A 2 program had been found byuthe QA Department at LILCO 3 earlier. 4 How, that's very.important because a 5 good QA program, it.finda problems, one. And two, it
-6 makes sure'they get resolved.. So here we have-QA-7 working.to a' point.. The problems were being 8 detected.. Apparently the problem was'they'weren't 9 getting resolved. At least from my point of you you
.10 all responded quite promptly.to that; that you all-11 held an enforcement conference.on March 20, and on' 12 March 21'you cent out your confirmatory action ,
3 13 letter. 14 After that LILCO, at their own , 15 initiative, embarked upon a-two-pronged inspection, 16 and that was done during the period of April 6 to 17 17. 18 Following that, you'all conducted 19 some follow-up inspections. The next thing that JLrt 20 the public domain we really heard.about qualification , 21 and training was your report 8610, and in 8610 you 22 basically were closing out the items that had been in 23 the confirmatory. action letter to-some degree, and- ) .24 one of the key paragraphs was the fact that there had AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003-
)
9 1 1 -been this LILCO audit, and it mentioned that1there 2 had been 35' findings, 17. observations, and so<forth. 4 i 3 Well, that stirred up.our curiosity, i l 4 and so-immediately thereafter, we requested-a copy of S the LILCO audit, and'then we began through a tortured i 6 process of communication. The first response we got ! I 7 from the NRC was thatLyou didn't have a. copy of the
~
8 audit,-and we' never were successful in obtaining a l 9 - copy of the. audit from the NRC. 10 Finally, in response to an inquiry 11 from Congressman Markee on October 28'afcopy of the j 12 LILCO audit was provided. Then had there'been prior , )- 13 indications of deficiencies in qualification and 14 training? Yes. We looked at your 1986 SALP. You 15 talked about training and qualification' category 3,' 16 and declining, you talked about personnel errors. So. 17 it was a rather well known fact.that there.were 18 training and qualification problems. 19 Well, this. tortured communication 4 20 between the two of us has continued ~after October 21 31. At that time the MHB report was provided to 22 you. I was disnayed at some of the original 23 responses. Response'in ' Newsday' basically. j 24 criticized it. There were letters from the staff ; I l
.f AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC..(215)545-7003 j
10 t 1 that talked about.this-being allegations'of MHB. 4 2 This is not allegations.. This is coming right out of 3 your own LILCO documents. Then there has been a. 4 dispute over-the extent to which suffolk County-5 should be involved in this, all of which.has kept us 6 from having today's' meeting from our-point'of view.- 7 We are here' today, but this tortured 8 path'thtt we'have been_uponLfor the last year leads 9 me to the conclusion, and-this'is my conclusion -- 10 HR. COLLINS: When.you say we and my, 1 1 11 who are you referring to? 1 12 HR. HUBBARD: When I-say my, myLbeing. 13 Richard Hubbard. 14 HR. COLLINS: Are you speaking for New 15 York State and Suffolk County? 16 MR. UUBBARD: Yes. I 1 17 MR. COLLINS: So:when:you say we and 18 my, it's New York State and Buffolk County's I 19 position? 20 HR. HUBBARD: Yes. l 21 HR. DYNNER: Let'me say for the record 22 that on behalf'of Suffolk County we have,.of course, 23 met with Mr. Hubbard and reviewed the presentation h 24 that he is making to you today, and,we cannot express AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
s L 10 4 'l that talked about this being allegations of HH'B. 4 2 This is not allegations. This is comingLright out of 3 your-own LILCO documents. Then there has been a 4 dispute over the extent to.which Suffolk County, 5 should be involved in this, ali of'which has'kept us - 6 from having today's meeting from our point of. view. 7 We.are here today, butJthis tortured 8 path that we have been upon for the ladt year leads 9 - mefto'the conclusion, and this is my' conclusion.-- 10 HR. COLLINS: When you say we and my,
. 11 who are you referring to?
12 MR. .HUBBARD: When I-say my, my being- ) 13 Richard Hubbard. 14 MR. COLLINS: Are you speaking for New 15 York State and Suffolk County? 16 MR._HUBBARD: Yes._ 17 MR. COLLINS =So'when you say we and 18 my, it's New York State and Suffolk County 8 s 19 position? ' 20 HR. HUBBARD: Yes. 21 MR. DYNNER: Let me say for the record 22 that on behalf of Suffolk County we have, of course, ' 23 met with Mr. Hubbard and reviewed-the presentation l ) 24 that he is making to you today, and,we cannot' express AREh-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING,.INCI (215) 545 4 7003
1 1 11 ' I strongly enough the degree to which we agree with 2 2 what Mr. Hubbard is presenting to you, and of course, 3 we will be happy to discuss, after his presentation, i 4 what comes out of it, but he is speaking for Suffolk > 5 County. f 6 MR. COLLINS: And New York State? 7 HR. BLAU: Of course he is 8 representing New York State. 9 HR. COLLINS: Thank you. ] 10 MR. HUBBARD: So the bottom line is 11 that the NRC appeared to act promptly initially, but 12 over the last year there has been a deficient 13 follow-up, and our confidence in the NRC, in relying 14 on the NRC has been seriously eroded as a result. 15 HR. KANE: I would like to focus on ! l l 16 the follow-up is seriously deficient part of what you 17 are saying. Could you go into that in some more la detail? 19 HR. HUBBARD: Let's start with the 20 audit itself. There'is a reliance upon'an audit of 21 LILCO. The first time we asked for the audit we were. 22 told you don't have a copy. Later on we do receive a 23 copy, and it took many months to get that copy._ Now, h 24 we think that it's appropriate that you rely to some-I 1 AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. '(215) 545-7003 j j
12 1 extent on audits that are done by the licensee. That 2 would only be proper with your limited resources, but 3 we don't think it's proper not to have-a copy of 4 something-you are relying on. So that has to do with 5 process. 6 Then we have a difference in our 7 technical judgment, Mr. Kane, on the clear reading of1 There 8 the LILCO audit which I will talk about later. 9 were 35 findings. Those findings go.well beyond 10 radiochemistry. They go into broad areas of - 11 qualification and training. 12 Why don't I just move right~1nto that ) 13 because that's really my next.ch' art 7 14 MR. COLLINS: Would you expect the NRC 15 to have in its possession all records which are 16 relied upon for the basis of inspection?' 17 MR. HUBBARDs By and large, yes, 18 particularly on something like that, and if you 19 didn't have them in your possession, I would expect 20 that you could'get them just about like that. 21 MR. COLLINS: Okay. LM R . HUBBARD: So either you have them
~
22 23 or you have access to them. MR. KANE: There is a difference, I ) 24 AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC.: (215) 545-7003
l 13 1 think, between having access to them and'having them x 2 'in our possession. You' understand, I am sure, that 3 we don't obtain every record that the licensee-4 produces on every issue when it'becomes a. matter of 5 public record and placed in-the Public Document 6 Room. There are certain things like these OA audits 7 that are typically reta'ined by the licensee, and.we 8 have-access to.them. 'We have access to everything l 9 that the licensee has. 1 10 MR. HUBBARD: That's correct. 11 HR. KANE: Obviously we.had access to 12 the' audit at the time of the inspection. So I am l 13 having a difficult time understanding when you say we i I 14 do not have access -- j i 15 HR. HUBBARD: I think you are l I l 16 quibbling about words, Mr. Kane. You had a- l l 17 confirmatory action letter'wh'ich you. closed out in. , 18 part upon reliance of a major audit. This is not a i 19 minor audit. This is an audit of over 1,000 hoursoof 20 LILCO involved with a nuclear review board,'and you 21 are closing out a confirmatory action letter in part
~
22 based on this audit. This is not your routine 23
~
documents that are held in people's files. This is a ) 24 very important document. AREA-WIDB PEDERAL, REPORTING, INC.'(215)~545-7003
- - - - - _ _ = - _ _ _ _ j
l'4 - 4 1 MR. KANE: That typically is left with 4 2 the licensee. It's part of their files, and we have 3 access to it. 4 I'am trying to understand what.you 5 are really trying to say. Is it that you feel that 6 that document should be part of the public records ' 7 'placed in the PDR, typical.QA audits conducted by a 0 licensee should be made part of the public record? 9 MR. HUBBARD: That wasn't what I had' ) 10 been fccusing on today. I had. focused on you relied' 11 on an' audit. When' asked to produce the audit,_you 12 couldn't produce it and didn't produce it for many
'13 months.
14- And secondly, on a plain-reading of 15 the audit it disagrees with the conclusion to which 16 there were views for by the NRC. So there were two 17 things. There was process, and also the technical 18 judgment. 19 MR. DYNNER: Just for clarification, 20 Hr. Hubbard, when you talk about the_ audit that you ( 21 were unable to obtain from the NRC and'lator'was 22 received through other chadnels, what was't'he length 23 of.the document we are talking ~about? Are we talking 24 about file drawers full of documents, or are we i AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215).545-7003-
15 I talking about'something.more manageable than that?
- 2 HR. HUBBARD: No. The audit itself, 3 the summary of the findings and observations-is 4 approximately 35 pages.long. There are attachments 5 ~ which might amount to another 100 or so pages.
6 MR. COLLINS: I guess the point I i I 7 wanted to make by asking that questionf isEthat the ! l 8 manner which.we dealt with the audit as far as not ! j 9 having a copy of the audit is not untypical of the 1 , 10 way we have done business. historically and. continue 11 to do business. 12 HR. GUTIERREZ: Maybe I'can clarify. 13 it. I think we are talking past each other to an i 14 extent. You were first responding to Mr. Collin's 15 question as to what do you mean about deficiencies. l 16 It's a fact that you first asked some representative I l 17 of the NRC for a copy of the audit, and after a 1 18 series of questioning you were told we did not have l l 19 it, and eventually one was found. That was.one j 20 assigned-reason for-you saying your confidence in the 21 NRC has been eroded. ! 22 The thrust of your comment though'has , 23 to do with the technical difficulty; that regardless 1 ) 24 of the fact that it took us 3 months to get you'a l j 1' AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING,1INC. (215) 545-7003
o
' l'6 k' 1 document you were originally' told we did not have,
? l 2 once you.got that document you disagreed with us 3 techn1cally as to what it meant. Now you want to 4 talk to us'about,1after reading that document, 5 technically where do you' disagree with us. 6 MR. HUBBARD .You saidfit very Nell, 7 yes. 8 Just to stop for a moment, I , 9 : hesitated starting in in front of the NRC saying that 10 our confidence was eroded because I don't want to 11 really'get into the discussion of the type we'just 12 did, but I think you need to understand that as 13 background information. 14 So I would now like to move on to the 15 LILCO audit >which'is really the focus -- 16 HR. KANE: I' thought the' discussion 17 was helpful. 18 MR. GUTIERREZ: One other clarifying 19 point, I think, is that you do concede that as a 20 normal' course of business the.NRC is not expected to
.21 . retain copies of anything and everything.they see.
'22 As fact of life s we retain what we' feel'we need in
~
23 order _to do our job. g
-)
24 :HR. .UUBBARD: -In generale: I would 1 AREA-WIDE' FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215)-545-7003 i
1 agree with that. 2 HR. DYNNER: That does no't change-the 3 facts that with this particular document that the 4 road that had to be taken to obtain it was in our 5 view a torturous'one, and that we shouldn't have had 6 to go to those kinds of lengths when both the Etate 7 and the County have such a vital interest in this. 8 So in general, what you say may be true, but in the \ . . 9 specifics, we were extremely disappointed with the 10 HRC's response to our request. 11 What we are trying.to do here at~this 12 point is to set the stage for the further discussion, 13 and not get into an argument with you as'to whether 14 you were justified or not justified by waiting _3 15 months or whatever it-was before we got a report. 16 MR. KANE: I guess I have to 17 understand what you are telling me. Are you telling' la me-that for a document _that we typically do not keep 19 in our possession, retain in our files, that if, in 20 fact, you ascertain that there~l's such a document 21 that's availabic that:you desire to have for-your 22 reasons, whatever they may be, that they_should be 23 available to you through the NRC7 24 HR. DYNNER: My experience, and I've AREA-WIDE PEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
18 E 1 only been dealing with the URC for about 5 years, has 2 2 been that when the NRC wants to get something from
'3 the licensee or otherwise that it views is.important, 4 it'has a wonderful ability =to do so very quickly, and 5 that when the NRC does'not want to make a document 6 available:to somebody for whatever reasons that might 7 be, it has a way of dragging its feet. If'you were 8 to characterize what happened in'this'particular 9 situation, I would probably.have'to say I would be 10 extremely surprised if the reason whyJthe State and 11 County were unable to get that= report was because you:
L 12 just couldn't put your_ hands on.it for 3 months. ) 13 MR. GUTIERREZ:~At that point you are 14 questioning the integrity of the.NRC. I understand 15 there was'a delay in the' production of that 16 document. The County and the State asked the 17 Resident _ Inspector for that document, the Resident 18 Inspector .in good faith did not believe he~had that - 19 document. In fact, he did not have that document. 20 It was only after the County made a motion to the 21 Commission, and the~ Commission-directed the staff to i 22 . treat that motion as a formal request that a 23 legitimate search was made and the document was q 24 discovered by all people acting in good faith. I J q AREA-WIDE PEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003- _ _ - _ \
i! 19 i o 1 note that for the record. 4 2 MR. BLAU: I would note for the record 3 that we were bounced around all over the place in f 4 trying to get the document. When we called-the-5 Resident Inspector, he said, "I don't know where it i 6 is. Go ask Long Island Lighting. Company for'it". 7 Long Island ~ Lighting Company said, "We don't have to 8 give it to you". We then-have to file a-motion with-l 9 the NRC. We can't'do this through informal channels. l l 10 It takes' forever to'do something'like this. 1 11 If this is a document that someone is j 1 I 12 going to rely upon in the manner that Mr.'Hubbard has d 13 summarized, then I would think that one would have. l 1 14 that document handy. So it is a question of:the 1
-q 15 NRC's process, 'if you deem it such. We are concerned 16 about that. But as Mr. Hubbard is saying, let us 17 move on here.. ;
18 MR. GUTIERRE3 Process, I agree with 19 you. Mr. Dynner, I understoo'd the question 20 integrity,.and that was what my response was directed 21 toward. 22 MR. DYNNER: That is your 23 characterization; not mine. If you want to say it's 1 / 24 a question of the NRC's integrity, that's your
)
,i AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
l 20- 1 5 1 characterization. - 4 . 2 Our ' situation is what wo have said it
~3 'i s at.the starting points:that our disappointment in-4 net being.able to obtain this document on a timely. 1 I
5 basis.'is one of the-factors that eroded-our j l confidence -.in the-NRC. 6 I think that?s where , j 7 Mr. Hubbard started. It wasn't intended, and I hope 8 does not continue, to get intofan' argument about i 9 integrity.because I don't think that's the issue 10 today. 11 MR. IUtNE: I would like to go back and 12 have my question. answered because.I never got it 13 answered. My question was,. there.are many many' 14 documen'ta out there. Only some of these documents we 15 retain. Those that we retain are typically put in 16 the PDR. -Hy question is,-is it your position that if , 17 you. request a document that may be typically retained ]; I i 18 by the licensee, but we have access to through' our: f) 19 inspection processes, that you believe the NRC.is a 20 mechanism for you to get that document, if you-so j t 21 desire. That's the question I'm.asking.. Is thas ;l l 22 clear-enough? 23 HR.RDYNNER: It's clear, but it's too )
~
124 general.to be usefu1 to me. In this particular case AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING,-INC. (215) 545-7003
i 21 1 we are talking about'a particular' document. It was e 2 an important audit report. It was a document'which, 3 as Mr. Hubbard said, summarized the results of a very 4 important investigation, and it was a document which
,5
~
we believe'should have been furnished to the County I 6 and the State on a,more timely baois. I can't. speak 7 in generalities because I am only talking about.this 8 one specific point. If'another. point comeni up or 9 another issue comes up of another document,.we will 10 be able to discuss that in specifica. 11 I don 8t expect the NRC' staff to be a-12 retrieval committee for the County, the State r or for )- 13 LILCO for that matter, but we do expect that'when a 14 particular important document', that everyone known or 15 ought to, has great significance to the safety-of the 16 operation of Shoreham, is requested, it ought not to 17 take the gymnaatics to obtain that this one took to 1 i 18 obtain'in our view. l 19 HR. KANE: Okay. I will'go on. lt ' m ' 20 not sure I'm ever going to get the question : 21 answered. Go ahead.
'22 MR. HUBBARD: I would like to move on 23 now and talk about the LILCO audit. LILCO did doithe
) 24 audit in April, and from their audit report,I think I AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003.
22 ' 1 "the key thing is that the purpose was to do a broad a 2 audit. It was to go beyond. radiochemistry. When you 3 look at the scope, I1put this up so there is no 4 question of the breadth of the people and 5 organizations that were contacted. 6 .The resources that LILCO applied to 7 this were substantial. They'had a 12-man audit 8 team. I'think you areLaware that.they had 9 consultants from 2 different companies also helping 10 them out in this 12-man. They'said they spent over. 11 1,000 person hours. That'seems quite reasonable, and 12 not only did they look at paper'and procedures,'they ) 13 also interviewed 65 people. This was a cross ~section 14 of management and operations personnel. 15 As a result of'that they had 35 audit 16 findings and 19 observations. The 35 findings _is_a 17 number that could be much lower.or much higher 18 depending on how you wish to count findinga. Some of j 19 the findings were resolved _right during the audit, 20 and so there was'no follow-up action' required. So in 21 that sense 35 is too high a number. But in the other l 22 cense many of the findings had multiple parts. -So in 23 that sense there were'more than 35 findings. 'But I , )- 24 think the bottom line is that.there were a ; { AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
w > q7 , o
.y t
- y. 1 ,*
f
- i , s l g'g'> -
t.
~
L , , 1 : substantial number.of/ findings andLobservations that-2 cut across a.wid's variety 'of areas, and:thos'te are
, a ,
'basica11yfset'forth in.theJLILCO addit) report.
13 ,,, m , i+ 4 I.have the~ audit" report;heritswihhi
~5 me. :It's what fI said? bef ore , L it 's 35 ; pages,.;1ong . ' '
~
V .
.. r> <
-6 .Now,Lif you \ook at the' audit' report 11tself,xwhatsyaut e,,
basical'ly ifind fi's lthatiyou, have Ta ' couple r c f. 7 y j.i :8 questions. mThe first Dquestion-one has.:to..ans'wer is,
+
,. v ; ,
9 is there 'aiprogram, .a'n dJ the" answer wasL no. The: - i o , ,.
+
10 program itself.was: deficient. 11 MR.-WIGGINS: can I ask-which . 12 program? '. ~ r- s lc. , 13 MR.--HUBBARD: TheLqualification and. 3 y 14 training program.. , l 15 MR. WIGGINS: WhichLaspect? , 16 .MR.>HUBBARD:;That's set forth in'the3 . e 17 audit report-itself.;ForLexample,:Jprogramatic, let me.
; ; s
-18 .give you some. examples, Programs although a draft. #
19 administrative training;manualidoesJexist,;without a!, 20 forma 1 approved program'do ument.there.existsfaTladk J ,'
'21 of uniformrimplementation.<
22 MR..WIGGINS: :Yes. I am~awareif'thatI
~
23 ' finding. I ' )s 24 I guess.my questioniis, are we MREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, I NC . i ( 215 ) - 5.4 5'-7 0'0 3 n- , n e :!
24 1 contending the licensed operator training program, 2 the non-licensed operator training program, the-3 radiation protection technician training ' program, 4 engineer training program -- what in specific is 5 deficient in your consideration based on your review 6 of the audit? 7 HR. HUBBARD: That, you.would have to-8 go into the exact findings of this. They found that i 9 there.were major program elements that were not 10 there. I'm going to go back to a quality assurance.. i 11 We are all aware that criteria 2 says that for people 12 impacting quality,.they will have' indoctrination and 13 training program. Criteria.5 says that this will be 14 documented. Part of what they found here was'that 15 the program was not documented. There were many. I 16 procedures that were missing. f-17 MR. WIGGINS: Your assessment then, to 18 make it clear in my mind since we have to. decide what 19 it is that will have to be exumined in this case, is. 20 that the entire program-is deficient. 21 HR. HUBBARD: I think that based on 22 the LILCO audit it raises questions about the entire -1 23 program, licensed and non-licensed. The primary ) 24 thrust of the findings here are what I would call AREA-WIDE PEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215)'545-7003
25' 1 non-licensed personnel because there had been a lot 2 of attention to licensed personnel after what, 7 out 3 of the 10 operators failed to pass their training'or 4 their tests the first time around. I think an 5 objectivc reading is that-first of all, the. program 6 itself did not exist in all its phases.- The program 7 was not documented, and there.wereinot clear and 8 concise procedures. 9 The.secon'd thing that was found was 10 that the^ implementation was not'effectivo. 11 HR. KANE: Back to the first i 12 question. When you say the program raises questions 13 about the entire program, when you talk'about the 14 program was not in place,.you're talking about the 1 15 entire program, the entire training program? I.am 16 not trying to split hairs, but you are not. 17 distinguishing as to specific aspects of the program 10 for specific types of personnel, but the entire ' 19 program. 20 HR. HUBBARD: That's right. 21 MR. KANE: Licensed and non-licensed..
'22 MR. HUBBARD: Yes, because.the LILCO review was an audit in a sense, and the LILCO audit
~
23 24 found a number of programmatic elements that were not )- ] l AREA-WIDE PEDERAL' REPORTING,~INC. (215)'545-7003
)
26 9 1 there. .Ncnd, that raises. questions about the progri..a 4 2 .in general for qualification and-training of 3 personnel. 4 The second thing the'LILCO audit
'5 found, as your audit had before,'was that there were 6 deficiencies in implementing a' program;;that'you 7 would have a procedure and i t was not being 1
8 implemented.. ~ I 9 The third thing --
'10 MR. JOHNSTON: You are quoting LILCO 11 findings? j 12 MR. HUBBARD: I am quoting LILCO's 13 findings and your' findings.
14 H P. . JOHNSTON: Can I quote -your 15 findings'in your report that you wrote to the State-16 of New York, which is, I guess, in return quoting 17 LILCO? "The principal areas of c'oncern cited byfthe 18 audit were lack of.a formally, approved administrative: I 19 < training manual, lacklof training program and 20 procedures for the training ofimanagementfand 21 supervisory personnel and engineers in training, lack I 22 of a procedure governing requalification.for ! 23 non-licensed personnel, and lack of.. administrative
. 24 procedures'which control the training program for.the l AREA-WIDE.PEDERAL REPORTING,-INC. (215) .545-7.003
b 27 1 nuclear training division". 2 Those sorts of quotations here age 3 rather r31atively specific dealing with specific 4 aspects c a program, rather than the whole' program. 5 As I.would read what.you quoted out of.LILCo's 6 findings, it sounded to me,to be a little different 7 than thejthrust that I was hearing at the present 8 time. 9 HR. HUBBARD: Mr. Johnston, go to.page 10 6 where the LILCO audit report stated, "The absence 11 of systematic controls and lack of effective-12 implomontations in conjunction with identified 13 deficiencies and inconsistencies indicate a previous 14 lack of management attention'to training and 15 qualification". 16 I am trying as hard as I canEto say 17 that I am not here saying there were a finite list of 18 the problems that ~were in the LILCO audit. What I am 19 trying to say is this last sentence, which 10 there 20 is an absence of systematic _ controls'and lack o'f' 21 effective implementation. That is the root cause 22 here or the root of what's going'on. I think we do a
-23 disservice to only attack these individual symptoms.
24 The next point then is, was J AREA-WIDE. FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003- ,
l 1 28 i
-1 management committed to a qualification and training j l
2 program. Wellr the LILCO audit shown. evidence that. j i 3 management had not-had a' commitment to qualification I l 4 and training. And the interviews, if you look at'the f 5 comments on that, show there was confusion about the 6 role of training, and there was questions concerning
'l 7 the adequacy of training.
1 8 And then finally, that the OA 9 Department at LILCO had found.some ,of these problems _i 10 'i n the past and'they had not resolved them. So that l l 11 management had not seen that the corrective. measures i 4 12 were responsive to the underlying problem. Part of l
)
13 that meant that as a result you had your audit last 14 year and you had the corrective. action letter. 1 15 So what we find is that LILCO had l 16 committed in the FSAR and in meeting Appendix'B and l l 17 in reg guides that they were: going to have a j 10 qualification and training program, and, in fact, 19 there were widespread, not just radiochemistry, l 20 failures to develop and implement such a program, and 3
)
21 that this had been occurring over a number of years.: ! 22 With.that then as a background, what 23 do we see? Well, first of all, you, like we, want to ) 24 assure that LILCO does fulfill its licensing _j u i AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003 I
>l
29 1 commitments. There is no question that they have a
'2 commitment to have qualification and training.
3 MR. WIGGINS: Let's.back up. It's 4 important that I understand exactly what you are 5 saying that is the result ~on the previous slide. Can l l 6 we go back to'the-previous slide, please? j 7 MR.-HUBBARD: Sure. i 8 MR. WIGGINS: I don't like to split' l a l 9 : hairs, but I really have to understand this' result. l 10 The result that you call a res' ult here is that your 11 conclusion is that the audit. categorically, finds.that 12 those problems exist; that the program.in tot'1.is a ) 13 deficient,=the implementation of what program there l 14 is is not effective,-management is inadequately-
-15 committed, and the corrective measures 1that were l
16 taken thus far were unresponsive to the needs.- Is i d 17 that-your view of the audit? 18 MR. HUBDARD's Yes. -If'I were back~ 19 being QA manager of General Electric, which I was at' j 20 one time, if I had gone in and audited a supplier - -
. 21 we'll say-LILCs were our supplier. We'll change 22 roles now. If.I had audited the supplier, I would -
23 have done exactly this thing. The first thing I .
'i
) 24 would have done is, I would have said, here are the
-AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. .(215) 545-7003,
____ _ A
E ! l 30
, Y i
i 1 things that are in our requirements. Do they have a l 2 / 2 program that, in fact, documented, addresses each 3 thing that they are committed to? And I would have
; 1 4 concluded no, they didn't. i i l 5 Secondly, I'would have had some.other j
.6 people taking their program and going out,to.seo.,1f f
7 it was implemented. And I have concluded that.I l 8 couldn't conclude that'they had implemented it. l 9 Third, I would ask my people what was 10 the management attitude there.. Are they-committed to 11 qualification and training, or not? And the answer I 12 would get is, that there was the perception of.a ) 13 management that was not committed or had not been-14 committed. ' 15 Then finally, I would say, is1this 16 news to them. Had they found this.themselvec ! 17 before? My people would have told me, yes. They 18 found this before. This.'s i not a new finding. 19 Does that-answer your question, 20 Mr. Wiggins? 21 HR. WIGGINS: I think so. I guess 22 what you just told me is, based on your rev.iew of the i 23 audit's findings in the 35-page audit report you come ) 24 to the conclusion that.the program.was deficient, and AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003 ,
31 1 what was there was not being implemented an'of the 2 time of the audit. 3 HR. HUBBARD: That's correct. 4 MR. COLLINS: Do.you perceive those
'i 5 summary findings to be different from the NRC's J 6 findings?
7 MR. HUBBARD: Yes.- 0 MR. COLLINS: You will get into.that? l 9 HR. HUBDARD 1I wasn't planning to. ' l l 10 Some of you-in the.past have heard:me-11 use an analogy of chefs and' pudding. That's really' 1 12 the analogy that.I would like to go through with you ! I ) , 13 now. If you are cooking a cake,.you have some 14 questions. Is there'the recipe, and is the chef l 15 following it? Are there enough-chefs to do the job? 16 And then a second question-is,11f the chefs are i 17 following the program and following the. recipes, is la the pudding any good? Because really-you.wantito-end 1 19 up with good pudding. , l d ' 20 That is basically the, scope of'an 21 audit that we feel needs to-be'done concerning- q l 22 . qualification and training. The first-part has.to do. J 23 :with management commitment. I think there needs'to' j ) .24 be an audit-of management with interviews-again, 1 AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC.-(215) 545-7003 ' 1
cr -- 32 b' '
>- )
- , ./
i 1 contir.uing what LILCC 0at' ' a tlted, to.see how the' people s . . 2 perceive the training / That's like, do they think
-3 the lesson plans are adequate? Do t%ey think there 1 1
4 is a high prioritg given to trainitig? Find out how ,f 5 the-people perceive the management attitude'and lj 6 commitment. , i . _ jjb.
,,q n
7 You and I could talk forever about I l 8 what management atultude is, and I'think w'e'511' agree f l l 9 that attitude isje$traordinarily important on how a J o 10 utility manages a particular function, but'it's also 11 something very dif[icult to quantify. So that while ( ~ . l 12 'we all agree'it'sLfmportantl bow;4o you measure it? .j j '
~
i sj ; [ 13 Well, that's really/the first thing we should make an j L 14 attempt to do'f'do some interviews, find.out;, l 15 management 's commitment to, quality.
.. t 16 Then we need to get int'~the o process
'8 ,
7 I- 17 itself'. An aedit or an inspection shou.1.d.see is the- , ( 18 program developed. I think we all know h$wjto'do 19 that. We know what the commitments are. We can go 20 and se,e that there is or is not documented program 21 that meets the con.mir, ment. Then we can go out and - 22 see if it's implemented. 23 HR. KANE: Unless I missed something, ) 24 you kind of skipped over a couolo of things'here in AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003-
33 l 1 terms of the current need. Could you go back.to the 2 beginning of.this and take us through? 3 MR. HUBBARD: Sure. Basically what we 4 see now in terms of current need is, there is some 5 uncertainty aboutJwhether LILCO is fulfilling its *
.6 licensing commitments regarding qualification and' 7 training. It's not clear evidence of that.
8 HR. KANE: Just-to kind of focus this 9 thing, you are directing this, I assume, at the 10 inspection, the upcoming inspection that we are. going 11 to do? Is this tied in in any.way? 12 HR. HUBBARD 1Yes, it is. What I am , 13 trying to say is, that I think you'need something 14 broader than the NRC going in.to do an inspection at 15 this' point. You did an inspection a. year agofand you l 16 signed off on it. At the same time LILCO made many 17 findings. That, to me, has eroded the confidence'in-18 the HRC doing it alone, and it seems'to me that LILCO 19 has shown to you that it's a broader problem than 20 maybe any of us thought originally. 21 So in the face of that uncertainty,
~
~22 both the uncertainty.of the'sise of the problem-and
'23 -the uncertainty over the confidence we would get from e
)- 24 another NRC inspection, that what I am suggestingifor l AREA-WIDELFEDERAL REPORTING, INC.'(215) 545-7003. { _ _ - - - - _ - - - - - - - - I
- 34. i i
j 1 the State of New York, and'Suffolk County has agreed,-
- c. .
2 what~is needed now is an independent in spe'c tion . I
~
3 Bring in an outsider, and tell himito take a look at l 4 this. And-I have a write-up of a suggested protocol 5 for such an inspection. 6 ~ Then when we get toLthat inspection, 7 'there is certain things that it ought'to include,. y 1 l 8 either an inspection or an audit. I am suggesting it j y 9 be an independent audit, but obviously if you decide l l l 10 not to'do on. independent. audit, it would be equally 1 1 11 applicable to your inspect 1'on. ; 1 l 12 MR. GUTIERREZ: After the inspection' i 13 findings on the radiochemistry department relative to 14 qualification and training, there were certain 15 deficiencies identified, and this audit seems to be 16 around the same time, the first, second quarter of 17 '86. What I have in mind is,'it's not uncommon 18 where, if we zero in on a problem, poor training and 19 qualifications in an area, we find similar problems 20 in other areas. There has got to be a time to allow 21 the licensee to correct the problems. Then we come 22 back and say a year from now or 6 months from now, 23 whatever the appropriate timeframe is, are-those ) 24 problems corrected. AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
i l 35 l i 1 Hy question-is this, and I ' don't know 2 the answer, but it seems to me.that maybe since this , I 3 audit seems to have been done around tho same time 4 that.we were considering enforcement action on the 5 radio, chemistry, I wonder if it's.a symptom.of:the , j 6 same problem that may have'been corrected by now. I 7 don't know the answer to that.- 8 Why I raise it.like.that is, you seem
>9 to be suggesting that we hit'upon the radiochemistry 10 and that's only as far as we look, and then when th'is. f i
11 audit came, it confirmed that it was a more 1 l 12 widespread ~ problem, and ve-don'tiseem to be doing l ) i 13 anything about that. So now there'is a need for 14 maybe a greater effort. 15 MR. HUBBARD -I think charitably'I 1G would say that there is now a broader concern. I 17 think the LILCO audit.showed it wasn't a narrow 18 concern just in one group. I also agree with.you 19 that a year has gone by. So now, the real question 20~ is not the program a year ego, but what'we have 21 today. 22 But the way then to clear up the. j 1 23 record on'that, and with more resources than'I think ) ) R2 4 you have or New York State orLSuffolk County, "is to AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING,'~INC. (215) 545-7003:
x . _- __
.4 1
36 . 4 1 ogo back in like we have done in the quality area.. g
.2 There are people out there that-can do an objective 3 technical ~ review, and let's tell'them what to.do.. We 1
4 will tell them to look at'these. things like the 5 management commitment, the process itself, was it-6 developed and implemented. Then_the next question you I 7 have is, is it the right number _of: people, is the
/
8 staffing adequate. You'look at your own. reports.- i 9 You question the adequacy of staffing _at.one time 'and l 1 l l 10 another. 11 Mr. Gutierrez, you also mention'that 1 4
- 12. now that there has been, we'll say, sunlight _ focused
) 13 on this areartLILCO may or most probably has done 14 corrective measure. That would be consistent'with' 15 your BALP reports. If you.look over the last few 16 years, you tend to say that when-something is focused 17 upon, either licensing or HRC_ interest, thenEthose 18 areas get attention, and areas that don't have the 19 sunlight have not gotten the commensurate round^of 20 attention. l 21 Now, you've been through the process- 4 22 and the staffing. The next is what I call-the 23 pudding. If do an' audit, you really want to also ) 24' take a look at some of the things that these various AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
7 , J
'.4 37 people are doing to see if, in~ fact, itis:being done
~ '
1 [
>~
2 right. So we should'not just2 .do' a paper sort of an~ 3 audit, but.we should go outsand look~at some:ofithe: 4 pudding. "
- 5 o , And then.the] question is -- th'at's 6 the one, Mr. Gutierrez, you mentioned.= There have 7 been findings inithe. train'ing area in the past. rsh L '8 one thi'ng you,would'want to,do'is,.to verify that-the' l . . .
~
L 9 corrective measures-that have'beenLinstituted in
~
~
10 _ response to those 'are.feffective and timely, and then 11 any other things that.come1out of the first 4 part,s 12 of the scope of the audit I am> suggesting,Lif there, ). " p is any corrective measures on'that, that shouldLalso, 13 b'e verified. 14 , 15 And then'there.is^a' question, when 16 should'this be done. If LILCO were not back-at low. L . ! 17 power, I would say it'should'be done before-they get 18 back at' low power because training and qualification- ' 19 are really~important. However,_that point is.alreadyL , 20 past. What I am saying is, that after;this o-21 particular time at low power', and.I assume they have 22 basically s 30-day, program or something.of that sort j 23 -- that's'what I was led to believe -- that sometime. ). 24 after JulyList the plant would be shut down,'an6 you AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING,JINC. (2 5) 545-7003 <
4 37
-i i people are doing to see if, in fact, it's being done 2 right. So we should not just do'a' paper sort of an 3 audit, but we should go out.and look at some of the' 1
4 pudding. ,
'S And then the question is -- that's 6 the one, Mr. Gutierrez, you' mentioned. There have :
7 been findings in the training area in the past. 'So 8 one thing you would want to do is, to verify that the 9 corrective measures that have been. instituted in 10 response to those are. effective'and timely, and then 11 any other things that come out of the first 4 parts 12 of the scope of the. audit I am suggestin'g, if'there- ;
) l 13 is any corrective measures on that, that shouldRalso 14 be verified. ,
15 And then there is a question, when 16 should this be done. If LILCO were not-back at low i 17 power, I would say it should be done before they get 18 back at low power because training and qualification-19 are really important. However, that point is already 20 past. What I.am saying is, that after this , 21 particular time at low power, and I, assume they have- ' l 22 basically a 30-day program or something of that sort' l 23 -- that's what I was led to believe -- that sometime. ) 24 after July 1st the plant would be shut down, and you
-AREA-WIDE PEDERAL REPORTING, INC..(215) 545-7003
't b 38 1 should not allow it to go back up.again until this 2 audit-has taken place.
3 MR. KANE: Could you go back to a l 4 couple of points on this slido for me? You've got
.5 independent audit, and'I guess I.still don't 6 understand what.that means from your perspective.
7 MR. HUBBARD: Let me go on.to,my.next-8 chart because it will talk about.that a'little more. i 9 What I am-proposing is, that there be a 4-person 10 steering committee set upp.one from the' State, one l 11 from the County, one from the NRC, and one from ' 12 LILCO, and that- this 4-person steering committee ) 13 would be in charge of. overseeing such an audit; that 14 there would be'an auditor picked by LILCO and 15 approved by the steering' committee to do the-audit. 16 The audit wouldLbe~ independent, and there.would be an 17 arms'-length information exchange, such that we have 18 an independent review; that it's technically 19 adequates that there is a protocol that allows the 20 State and the County to have a meaningful involvement 21 in this process. -i 22 Now, I attempted to put out some' t 23 ' guidelines for such an audit.. Maybe we;can pass ). 24 theseJaround. My suggestion is loosely. based on the AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING,;INC. (215) 545-7003
39 1 kind of arrangement'that is done in the quality - 2 assurance, 'the. independent design-' reviews, or - q 3 independent construction inspections.- It.'s many of q
. . H 4 the same-issues.- Do,you have a. program? Is it l 1
5 implemented? Is the management attitude right? Is - i 6 the pudding good?
~
7 So basically in the' proposal 1in-terms l 8 of purpose there-can be no question that.there.is 'a-
- 9 regulatory requirement that there be qualification .
l 10 and training. 1 11 second, I:am proposing a steering. . i 12 committee to oversee this. 1 13 Third, talking about the selection'of 14 an, independent auditor, and talk'about what is meant ] i 15 .by independence. 16 Fourth, talk about what-the proper 17 scope of such an audit would be. i 18 Fifth, I have attached a protocol, 19 and the protocol is loosely based -on some things that i 20 have been used in~other NRC proceedings and 21 settlement agreements.- I talk about the timing. 1 22
~
And then 1astly, in terms of proposal i 23 definition, this is a beginning of'a: write-up of how ! i 24 one might do such an. independent review. It is 'in AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, .INC. (215) 545-_7003 ,
os ' 40 1 4
'l some ways an old concept,-and in some ways.a_little i
2 bit of a new' concept, andLto tell you that we.would- q 3 be pleased to have the_ opportunity to work with you l 4 to have, what I say is, the needed cooperation 5 between the County, the State, and the Federal 6 Authorities. 7 so.that basically covers the areas 8 that I wished to cover today, and I've ended with the I 9 proposal of what I think needs to be done. '
)
l 10 HR.. COLLINS: I<have your proposal 1 l 'll here which, I assume,'is proposed on the basis of l 12 addressing the_ current needs. One of those current 13 needs is to restore a confidence in'NRC. Can you 14 indicate to me how this' program will restore 15 confidence in the NRC7 16 HR. HUBBARD: Yes. The audit will be > l 17 done by people outside the NRC, but under the 18 direction'of the NRC in part. So~that there should 19 be, whatever the results are, to the County, the 20 State or to you, it's being done by an objective 21 third party. 22 If you look at the protocol, of 23 course, the NRC retains its legal responsibilities to i 24 get in'and.do whatever you'wish, but still we have a AREA-WIDE. FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
= . _ _ _ - .
41 1 protocol set up where we are doing this in a 2 cooperative way. .I think that that would tend to 3 represent to the public in the State of New York and 4 Suffolk County that you are willing to take an 5 objective look at this. 6 MR. COLLINS: That would be opposed to 7 the NRC conducting-a^ total NRC review, and the a results of that not being given that' type of 9 confidence? 10 HR. HUBDARD: Well, I think that Would 11 have less confidence. Now, we could consider an NRC 12 review with'some sort of State and County
~
13 participation. You could have like an'NRC steering 14 committee that the County and the State would sit on, 15 and then have your own people do the audit. 16 Frankly, I think from a resource 17 standpoint, and the need to do this very quickly, la that the timing is very important from LILCO's 19 standpoint as well. We need to put -- and here, we 20 being the NRC and the County and the State -- we need 21 to put the proper amount of resources on it quickly 22 to put this behind us, and that, I think, can best be 23 done by going to an outside,' third party, independent . 24 auditor. AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003- '
42 1 MR. COLLINS So it's a' matter of 2 timing, and not necessarily a matter of the' knowledge-3 level or' competence or. independence of the'NRC, is 4 what I am hearing. 5 MR. HUBBARD: No. I am saying.it's a 6 number of factors.. Competence is one, . though I think. 7 your' people are very. competent. 8 HR. COLLINS: That's a perception. 9 MR. HUBBARD: An independent review 10 from a public perception is a good thing. We can- . 11 bring more resources to bear. We can do it in a- 1 12 faster period of time in a broader sense. f ) 13 MR. COLLINS.'Okay. l 14 ~ MR. HUBBARD: We all benefit, to find 15 l out objectively is that qualification and training'in' l 16 place?. And it's no different than these independent 17 designa reviews and independent construction d 18 reviews. It helps us all.. . 19 HR. WIGGINS: Have you thought this 20 out to.the extent that you determined the number of 21 people on t'ho actual physical auditing team,-other ; l 22 than the steering committee? Have you studied that 23 question? ) 24 MR. HUBBARD: No. The steering-AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003 l
43 1 committee is 4 people. 2 HR. WIGGINS: I understand that. I 3 mean the actual audit. 4 MR. HUBBARD: We had an independent ' 5 design review of Clinton that Bechtle did. They had 6 60 some people working on it. You look1at LILCO, 7 LILCO quickly mobilized. They got the letter on the. 8 21st of March, and by early April they mobilized 12 9 people and 2 consultants. In 2 weeksLthey mobilized. 10 MR. WIGGINS: That'r not the' spirit of-11 the question. I guess I'm trying to get a handle on 12 what size of auditing team do you anticipate is-13 necessary to have the desired effect, that is, to 14 assess the issue adequately, and complete whatever 15 review is going to be done and the-documentation of 16 it, and essentially come down with a conclusion on 17 the issue. 18 MR. HUBBARD: I would have thought -- 19 and this is a very rough number -- 20 MR. WIGGINS: Fine. 21 MR. HUBBARD: I was thinking in the 22 order of 2,000 person hours. It depends on how many 23 persons you put on it'how many hours-it might take' to 24 do it. LILCO said that they spent.in excess of AREA-WIDE PEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
44 l 1 1,000. That looked to me like interviewing 65 2 people, the areas they looked at. I thought they"did ! 3 a good-job in quickly mobilizing to do that. I think 4 an effort possibly twice as big as that because you 5 want to look at some corrective action. That would 6 be appropriate. Other people might disagree. 7 MR.-GUTIERREZ: I have a question that 8 maybe you can help me with. I am familiar with the 9 the Clinton audit, and I think we even worked 10 something.out in South Texas. I worked with you in 11 two cases previously, but in both of those cases the 12 premise was the licennee and some outside group-13 trying to reconcile a problem, a contention in a 14 hearing or whatever. The hurdle I'm having a problem 15 getting over in this. case is, what you seem to be 16 asking is for a substitute to la NRC function; namely, 17 you want an independent, objective, competent, 18 inspection, and the predicate of.that is a lack of 19 confidence in the liRC, as I understand your 20 presentation. 21 ~I ask you to put yourself in the 22 shoes of the Federal regulator listening to that 23 How do you reconcile those two things? In one hand 24 you extend a hand and say,.I want to cooperate.with AREA-WIDE-FEDERAL REPORTING,.INC. (215)-545-7003
+ . .. ,o '
45 1 you, and on the other hand you say, the1 reason-I-want ! 2 to cooperate is.because I have no confidence intyou. i 13 ,That's a hard thing for us.to deal with'here. Can 4 you reconcile those two positions of the~ State? , 5 RM R . HUBBARD: Yes. I think.it's in # 6 both the mutual interest of the NRC, the County, and' 7 .the~ State to have an objective third party take~a 8 look. It was that way at Diablo Canyon when the 9 problems were found. It was too massive a problem
~1 10 for the NRC to do by themselves in a~ timely fashion, 11 and there was a question of confidence, a'nd so by l
l 12 bringing in independent auditors', just.likeinLthe. 13 financial world,'it's the'way that the NRC onitheir 14 own initiative has done in constructi'on and desigh 15 questions, and. thio'is really a'very similar
;16 question. So it's consistent really with what you 17 have done in the past.
18 HR. GUTIERREZ: I am' unfamiliar with 19 the Diablo Canyon case. Was that something 20 cooperated by the 11'censee and financed by the 21 licensee? 22 HR. HUBBARDs Financed by the 23 licensee. The protocol was a little different ; i 24 there. Tho independent auditor was picked by the ] AREA-WIDE PEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
l 1 46
]
i 1, utility,-but the NRC approved it, and the State and 1 l 2 the interveners had the right to comment for 15 days , 3 on the select' ion. And then the next step was the j 4 program plan itself, Land again, the independent ; 5 auditor.developedithe program plan. It was submitted
- 6 by the applicant to the NRC, as I recall. I'am not 7 quite'sure. Then both.the Governor and the-0 interveners had 15 days to comment,on the adequacy of 9 the plan. Then the auditor.had a protocol-that.kept 10 the interveners-and the Governor involved. The audit 11 was all done at arms-length. There-were reportsLthat-12 were issued every two' weeks.
]
I 13 As a' matter of fact, even before the i 14 audit began I went with the NRC inspectors from~ l 15 Region 5 to PG and E for 2 weeksLand participated 16 with them, reviewing PG and'E and Bloom' documents. 17 So there is an example of where -- an'd I was' working 18 for the Governor of Califo'niar where-a member of an~ 19 intervener group went right.with your inspectors'and , 20 participated in the. audits. I didn't do it as an l l 21 observer. I was able to ask questions and look=at-22 documents and run copies of documents. 23 MR. DYNNER: That was financed by the: 24 utility, wasn't it? AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING,EINC.-(215) 545-7003. <]
=J
47: 1 MR. HUBBARDs.The review was financed? 2 by the utility. My original participation with the l 3 Governor was financed by the Governor.. 1 4 MR. KANE: How did that work-from your 5 perspective? 6 HR. JOHNSTON: Your par.ticipation as 7 you.just described it:was prior to this protocol; was l 8 it not? I 9 MR. HUBBARD It was. L 10 MR. JOHNSTON 'The protocol, the 'f 11 arrangementfthat'you just described was set-up by the l 12 utility, reviewed as you pointed out bysthe NRC, with [ l 13 opportunity for review-and comment by the intervening- 'I 14 groups, but it was' very much under_the control of the 15 NRC on a close basis. In;other words, the NRC was'an 16 integral part of the process, f 17 MR. HUBBARD: -The.NRC.is an integral l 18 part of this. The steering committee'is a little 19 different, but there have been various -- 20 MR.'JOHNSTON: It was NRC's' program. 21 MR. HUBBARD- Well, that's.hard to l 22 say because the Governor had an opportunity to 23 comment on the program. 24 MR. DYNNER: Selection'. ' _ l
-AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING,.INC.o (215) 545-7003
___ __ -- ___ _ _______ - w
]
C L48 i 1 HR. HUBBARD: It had an opportunity to 2 comment on selection. It commented.on acceptance 3 criteria, and,-as a matter of fact, there were 1 4 hearings held to really look into the adequacy of l
'5 what went on. The Governor had-access to alltof the- I 6 underlying documents. The Governor.had a meaningful l
7 role in the operation of it. ) 8 So what'we are talking about here is 9 really a little different. concept with a steering ; J 10 committee, but'come up with a plan and'a program, get 1 11 it approved, and then the auditor does the day-to-day; j 12 thing with the steering committee having.a role in it . 13 if there are meetings or things of that sort. So. l 14 it's a-compromise, I think. i 15 MR. KANE: How did that work out from 16 ~ your perspective and from the Governor's perspective, ! 1 17 and those that were beyond tho'NRC, and the utility / i 18 at Diablo Canyon? Were you satisfied with the 19 conclusion? , 1 20 HR. HUBBARD: Y,ou are never quite i d 21 satisfied, but I am satisfied that'it was a bigger 22 look than could possibly have been done during 23 intervention. We focused on the real issue, is the 24 plant designed. correctly, and isLthere good design-i l
-AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 5'45-7003
49
.1 process, rather than focusing positions in 2 litigation. So a.. great deal was accomplished in 3 terms'of real safety at the plant.
~
4 MR. KANEs Did it meet the State's 5 needs? Were they satisfied with the conclusion? 6 MR. HUBBARD: I think the State was 7 satisfied with a number of conclusions. I think 8 there were certain areas that they felt it didn't go 9 far enough. 10 MR. GUTIERREZ In Diablo Canyon was , 11 this arrangement part of a settlement of certain 12 contentions in hearing? 13 HR. HUBBARD: No. I don't'know if you .14 remember, Mr. Gutierrez. The Commissioner. ordered 15 that settlement meetings be held. 16 MR. GUTIERREZ: Yes. 17 MR. HUBBARD: I actually participated' 18 for the Governor of ' California. We had a couple of 19 days of 16-hour meetings when we tried to settle-it. 20 As a matter of fact, we reached a draft settlement 21 agreement. I think if you talked to the NRC, the PG 22 and E management then turned down the settlement 33 agreement that had been reached by.everybody. 24 MR. GUTIERREZ: My point in asking AREA-WIDE PEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
50 n i 1 that is not1to dwell'too much on procedure,fbut'it's ' 2 to try and. help us get over.this' hurdle that I know!I l I 3 feel, and.that is, in contrast to a settlement ; i 4 agreement in a hearing'where a licensee commits'to a'
, l 5 venture with an intervener, here you seem to be.
6 questioning our enforcement p'rerogative and in doing 7 that, are asking us to substitute our, efforts with 8 Independent third party.- In_that sense it's unique 9 and a departure from what we have done in the past. 10 HR. KANE: .Maybe it would_be. help if l 11 you could tell us who you have in mind for a'n 12 independent third party. )- -13 MR. HUBBARD: I had not thought about
.i 14 that. !
15 MR. KANE: Examples of organizations- ' 16 that could do the kind of thing that you are talking l 17 .about here. 18 HR. HUBBARD: The first criteria -- 19 HR. KANE: What do you mean by 20 independent?- You don't'mean an organization made up. e 21 by members of the.NRC, the state, the County, and. 22 LILCO? 23 MR. HUBBARD: No. ) 24 HR. KANE: You're talking about
- AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003-
50 t i 6 1 that is not to dwell'too much on procedure, but it's 2 to try and help us get over this hurdle that I know'I 3 feel, and that is, in' contrast to a settlement 4 agreement in a. hearing where a licensee commits to a 5 venture with an. intervener, here you seem to be 6 questioning our enforcement prerogative and in doing 7 that, are asking us to substitute our efforts with 8 independent third party. In that sense it's unique 9 and a departure from what we have done in the past. 10 MR. KANE: Maybe it would be help if 11 you could tell.us who you have in mind for an 12 independent third party. i 13 MR. HUBBARD: I had not thought about 14 that. 15 MR. KANE: Examples of organizations. 16 that could do the kind of thing that you are talking 17 about here. 18 MR. HUBBARD: The first criteria -- 19 MR. KANE: What do you mean by 20 independent? You don't mean an organization made up. 21 by members of the NRC, the State,'the County, and 22 LILCO? 23 MR. HUBBARD: No. 24 MR. KANE: You're talking about
-AREA-WIDE PEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
)[ ,
'a '
3 4
, r ., ,
') , !
~513, 1 1 g
)
il . anotiher'e'ntity apart:fromlthe"4 that-you have
'2 Jidentifie'd.here on--the;' steering committee. ~
-3 MR'. HUBBARD: Yes. -If;you look'down. 1
, 4 under independence, the consulting show no, . l U 5 'significant involvement in' design, construction or' 6 operation of LILCO currently or within the past: 5 1 7 years, and shall not have'any'.such' involvement for 4. 8 the.next 5. years;. m 9 Bo the firstething is, we Sant ' somebody that's demonstrab'ly competentLin. terms of 10 ' 11 knowledge and experience.. ' Demonstrably-competent, - d
~12 thats the first criteria..- m 1
j 13 Secondly, we'think there;are 14 competent people.i'nthe nuclear industry, because'
. 2 .
15 that's probably where you would?get them,fthat . have 16 not worked for LILCO in.the3 1ast 5-Years,andLwould' 17 ' agree not to f or the nexti .51 years. , i 18 MR. WIGGINS: Are you done with[that 19 point?.. I need'a' clarification. 1 y d 20 Hy understanding of the purpose of .
~
s this meeting wa'a' -- . tihe : second purpose of the ' meeting -
~
~21
-l I
22 was to! discuss the degree.of participationiin'our, 1 23 'the NRC, planned-ins'pection.}that'you believe-is 24 necessary.- It seems,'from'what'-I? hear now,fthat you f]
. 1
, 1 w
AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. ( j y ' ' 215 -)". 5 4 , 5-7 0 0 3' :u - r
-52' 1 have offered an alternate approach. Am 1[ to
~
2 understand that you rejected our; contention or our 3 : intended approach that.we1 communicated:to Mr. Kessel. 4 in the 20th of May letter? IsLit anLout-right
.5 rejection of that approach?
6 HR. DYNNER: No. It'sTnot a 7 rejection. It's a proposal :forgyour consider'ation of 8 an alternative. We are~not rejecting. 'We are 9 cooperating with HnC1 Region 1. We are trying to. lay-10 out for you an alternative which we believe, for 11 reasons Mr. Hubbard has stated, might.be preferrable 12 to the suggestion that was made in your letter.-
)~
13 Is that your feeling too?. 14 HR. BLAU: This, . we foel, is.a1bett'er 15 way of proceeding. 16 HR. KANE: So this supersedes your 17 . previous request?
. . I 18 HR. BLAU: No. Basically we are.
19 interested in achieving the same. purpose. 20 HR. KANE: Your previous request'was -j l 21 to open the special inspection to participation and ; 22 observation by representatives of the State and j 23 County, and others who may'have an interest to ) 24 participate and observe. That was your November 25 1 q AREA-WIDE FEDERAL. REPORTING,;INC. (215) ~ 545-7003 h _ - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - - .1
53
'l request. . Does this supersede that request?
2 HjR. HUBBARD: That's what this does. 3 MR..BLAU: It achieves the very 4 purpose that.we are speaking'to in that letter to-5 which you refer. 6 HR.:KANE: The.special' inspection'was4
'7 the HRC's special inspection. That's the way I read' 8 the letter. Maybe I read it the wrong way. '
9 MR. BLAU: The specialtinspection - 10 would be? basically'under the NRC's. auspices, but.it-11 would be in this framework that was suggested. We 12 are sort of splitting hairs. 13 HR. KANE: No, I am'not splitting 14 hairs. I thinN-it's a different proposal. It sounds 15 like a different proposal. , 16 HR. HUBBARD: No. ; 17 HR. BLAU: It's a different method of I 18 carrying out the same' proposal. ,! 19 HR. KANE: This isLnot an NRC special 20 inspection any longer. It's an independent 21 inspection by a third party, as I understand it, a-22 third party that would'be suitable to the NRC, the-23 licensee, the State of New York, Buffolk County, and 24 would not include participation by any of those . i AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC.-(215) 545-7003- . )
- - _ -_- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ --- 1
54 i i 1 parties. That's what I just understood, the proposal 2 that Mr. Hubbard made. j 3 HR. HUBBARD: It is participation. l 4 It's participation on'the steering committee. There ; i 5 are rights in the protocol. The NRC always have j 1 6 rights, like maet with the auditor and do those .f i 7 things. You will notice we left that in there. You 8 can do that in private, if you deem with good cause ! i 9 you need to. That's part of the' protocol. i 10 You could say it another way. The j I 11 State's role, rather than to be with some of your ! l 12 people marching arm and arm, is more in the direction l ) I 13 and the scoping of the audit, and in letting somebody j i 14 else do the actual audit. They are reserving the { 15 opportunity for the State and the County to i 16 participate in some of the detailed work. i 17 HR. COLLINS: I heard you say carlier 3 18 though that you are not really bound to.this one 19 proposal. This is just a framework. I believe I 20 heard you mention that as an alternative perhaps an 21 NRC inspection with independent oversight would be 22 acceptable. It appears that we'are dealing with how 23 to reach a philosophical goal, and there's at least 3 ) 24 proposals on the table. Now, how to do that. Are AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003'
l 55 1 you bound to any one of those? 2 HR. DYNNER: Let,me try to put it in 3 terms as the County sees it. This proposal is.a way 4 that we believe the State, the County, and the NRC 5 jointly can reach a goal, but determining whether or 6 not what we regard as the pervasive deficiencies in 7 LILCO's training and qualification program still-8 exist, or.whether they've been corrected, and whether 9 that program now' qualifies and is regulatorily a 10 correct one. 11 We believe that the approach that we 12 are talking about that Mr. Hubbard is presenting 13 would be the approach that from our point of view 14 would be the most effective, would be the quickest, 15 would have the most public confidence, and would best 16 serve the purpose that we all, I think, are. striving 17 to. attain. 18 That is not to say that we are coming 19 to the table with you and saying, either you accept 20 this proposal or we're walking out the door and don't-21 want to have anything else to do with you. 22 We are putting forward a proposal'for 23 your consideration. We do not expect you to react to 24 this proposal sitting here today. You have not had a
' AREA-WIDE FEDERAL' REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
1 1 / < d j 56 ] I 1 chance'to review it. You.have not hsd-a chance,.as r' ,
-2 you might wish, to come back with additional- j 3 questions once you have ' reviewed.it. We are not i"
4 asking you to make a quick reaction yes s or no. Wef 5 are asking:you to consider this proposal re one j 6 alternative"way in which the purposes can.be.
+
7 achieved. t 8 'After we have, and I would hope'that' 9 we would be~able to have:some kind of a dia1Sgue 10 about.this proposal, if'there are reasons why you> 11 feel that you need to turn down this proposals.that 12 there are reasonsfwhy you feel there are. parts ofthe
~
13 proposal you think are good, and' parts that you would , 14 like to see modified, and we can. talk about those,swe 15 are anxious for that dialogue to continue. 16 We don't want an adversarial-17 relationship with Region >1 or with any-ofLthe NRC. 18 We don't want' to come here and get into a' discussion-
~
19 in the past as to why confidence may havet been eroded 20 or not because we think that there is, in fact,;an j 1 21 issue here that transcends-that issue, and that: issue ' i H 22 is, how can we best assure ourselves thatEthat plant, ] 23 if it opens, is; going to have'a. safe'and. competent 24 training and" qualification program, so that it will- 1 i AREA kWIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215)'545-7003 j
i 57'
]
1 be operated properly, and this is one, alternative 1 2 proposal 1we.would~.like you to consider, and 7 we would- . 3 like'to~ discuss with you further. 4 MR. KANE: Let me ask somewhat of a 5 fundamental question'that I guess is central to this. ) 6 whole issue.- The fundamental premise of this , I 7 proposal, no matter how you cut it, is that the NRC f 8 is not either to be trusted, or sufficiently 9 competent, has enough resources, whatever, to'do'this= 10 inspection and'have the results,.have any credibility ! L 11 with the County or with the State'as you see it.
, S o ~,
l l 1 1 12 therefore,'this proposal would satisfy, if we - 13 accepted.it,.would satisfy those needs for both the 4 1 14 County and the State. Can we agree to.that?. 1 15 MR. DYNNER:-I would. soften that, 16 Mr. Kane. I wouldn't say the NRC has no credibility. l
.{:
17 I would say as a note, it's important the nuances i 10 here be right. R 19 We are not saying-we have lost total 20 confidence in the NRC. I, in fact, have personally. 21 been involved with Region 1 personnel on= inspections 22 that have been done at LILCO,'and'have personally 23 have been very impressed with some of these 24 inspectors that you've got, and one of them is 1 a AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTIHG, INC. (215) 545-7003
58 1 sitting in this room. I have been very impressed l l 2 with the competence, integrity and everything else.. I 3 That's not the principal issue that we want to
~
4 address. 5 ThereiJin fact, for whatever reasons 6 exists a feeli'ng that this inspection, given the 7 background and the timing and all other factors, 8 might well be best accomplished through the proposal 9 that we made, through an independent audit, and that 10 that would meet,,in our. view a wholegre ge of issues t . v' 11 which we've discusyed here today. 12 It shouldn't be tIken, and I don't
. ~
13 want you to take'iti as a frontal attack on the 14 competency oz. the integrity of NRC. It's just that i
-15 the confluenct;of the-situation of whiNNI an crosion
; I' 16 of confidence is only one aspect, leads us-to believe 17 that this is a proposal we would-like you to la consider. > ;j' ,9 r 4
, ;< 4:
19 n, HR. KANE 'I wou14 like to understand 20 what the other aspects are'becastse;,the only 9ne I > ci , 21 have been able to derive sc7 far,has been --'and was , _p ? 22- on the very Rirst slide --'in the erosion of 23 confidence.L , 24 HR. DYNNER: Mr. Hubbard can go into
- i l
1 naea-wins esusans asgoxwiuu, iuc. crio, . ..s -; o o t t
- _ . -_ - - - . - - - . - kf i
~
59 t 1 some of the technical'ones. I heard-him talk abou,t 2 timing. From our point of true it's extremely 3 -important that this be accomplished as rapidly as 4 possible. 5 I think from the point of view of' 6 . staffing, he. spoke to that. I don't know what your 7 resources are. Maybe you've-got the c'esources to 8 throw into this where you could solve those two j
.9 ' issues.. '
10 The third is'the confidence issue, 11 the feeling-that we-would-feel better from the, 12 County's point of view having the. totally independent-13 auditor who is not a party.to any of these 14 proceedings. 15 MR..KANE: That gets back to theLfirst 16 issue. 17 HR. DYNNER: That's what I'm saying. 18 That's a part of the erosion in confidence. 19 MR. KANE: That's one issue, erosion 20 of confidence. 1 21 The second issue is timing,'an6 I 22 would like'to discuss that a moment. Timing 23 involves, first of all, establishing a steering 24 committee. . ' s y AREA-WIDE' FEDERAL. REPORTING, INC'. (215) 545-7003. p
- _ =. _ _. _
60 1 secondly, agreeing upon and 2 developing a set of names, finding and agreeing upon 3 .an independent auditor, establishing and agreeing 4 upon an inspection program, establishing and agreeing 5 upon the scope'of that. plan, establishing and , 6 agreeing upon the reporting of' findings, and 7 establis'.ang and agreeing' upon the criter-la that are 8 to be used to conduct the inspection. 9 Could you give'me some insight from. 10 Diablo Canyon as to how.long'that took? , 11 HR. DYNNER - Let' me just ' make 'otus 12 quick answer. We would' hope that.whatever we.come 13 out with in terms of a joint participation, that-all 14 but the first two of those elements would exist-in 15 any kind of an inspection that was carried out. That 16 is to say that there would be' discussion concerning. 17 scope of limitation and general protocol, the 18 reporting the findings;.that that would-be.something 19 that would be addressed even if this. inspection 20 ultimately is_done sol".27 by NRC personnel. So from l 21 our point of view'you tre.quite right. The two: I 22 aspects of timing would be basically the selection of ' 23 the auditor and bringing him on board. 24 MR. HUBBARD: I would think that'by-AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -_ _ __ =_A
j 1
'61 l
)
1 the let of July when they shut'down, that could H
- ')
2 easily have been accomplished. You bring up, 3 Mr. Kane, that there has to be some.way of resolving j 4 -disputes in a really fast manner because.you-might 1 5 'have LILCO and the CountyLagreeing, and the NRC and I 6 =the State disagreeing or something. I didn't put'in-i 7 the draft some sort of dispute resolution,.but that's 8 something that I'am sure Mr.- Gutierrez.and.the- , 9 attorneys could work'out real"quickly. 10 r At Diablo we wo'ked out the scope of I 11 the audit and who might do it'in two days,_a 12 settlement agreement, and then for a number of 13 reasons it didn t come to' pass, but- this does not - 8 14 have to take a long time. 15 HR. DYNNER: I'should add that I've- ; i 16 talked to Mr. Blau about this matter as well. It 17 seems to'un in terms of the goal that we have in-18 mind,'which is that this plant not go on line, not.be-19 able to go to low power again unless it'has a 20 training and. qualification program that meets-all of l 21 the regulatory requirements; that from our position a 22 resolution in the' manner in which we've been 23 discussing an inspection, would'be preferable.to our" 24 reopening the licensing proceeding and putting in new AREA-WIDE FEDERAL-REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003- '
62 1 contentions on the basis of LILCO's' inadequacies and j u 2 deficiencies as we see them. 3 And, therefore, while Jay is quite 4 correct, that we haven't put in those contentions 5 yet, it certainly seems to us more. reasonable from-6 our point of view, and cheaper and more' effective and~
~ '7 faster for everybody to'come in'-this way, rather th'an 8 to go the route.thatLa' litigator might say, sue them 9 first, and then worry about the consequences.
10 MR. ANEJ That's comehow apart from 11 what I'm concerned about. I see now two issues, two , 12 reasons that have been identified.so far for going 13 through this process. One is the erosion of HRC 14 credibility -- l I 15 MR. HUBBARD: Dill, why don't we spin- j 16 that into a positive? Why don't we say that the 17 first thing is public confidence -- 18 MR. KANE: I would like to finish. 19 HR. HUBBARD: Okay. l l 20 HR. KANE: Erosion of MRC credibility. 21 that this would somehow enhance, and then that this 22 would be a more expedient process that could be done 23 faster than NRC could go'in and do an inspection on 24 its own. AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003'
1 63 i 1 I fail to,see the latter' point. I 2 fail'to understand how this process could be somehow 3 faster than the NRC doing the inspection on~'its own.
~ ^
4' S'o I am left'with'the first-' issue, the so)s issue of. 5 .the' erosion of NRC credibility. 6 MR. DYNNER: Let.me'ask you"a 7 . question, if I may. Let's assume for a minute'that 8 we were talking,~as Dick'had,.about a 2,000-man hour 9 inspection. How quickly could the NRC' mobilize good-10 enough inspectors on the scene to_do a12,000-hour 11 inspection in your judgment 7 I am-not asking for 12 exact hours, but how long do you think that would- 1 I 13 take? I H 14 MR. KANE: First of all, that8s.a. 4 1 15 hypothetical argument that it would take 2,000 hours; 16 to conduct an inspection such as this. 17 HR. DYNNER: Assume that, if you ! 18 would. 19 MR. KANE: I guessiin a number of 20 cases where we had to,-we-could tu'r'n the place _ upside. 21 down and we'could put together that kind of an 22 inspection, but I think the~ supposition that it takes 23 2,000 hours to do it, to^me assms, just based on ) 24 overything else that we do, it seems like: it's far in AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
I 64 1 excess of what is needed. So' I can't really adopt' j 2 the. premise. 3 MR. DYNNER: What if we said 1,000 4 hours? I'm just trying to get'an idea. I am.not 5 trying to be. argumentative, but on the one hand you 6 say you don't think that that's a problem. -In order 7 .for^us'to'see why you don't.think that's a problem,' i 8 , we perceive that it might be. 1 9 MR. KANE: 40 hours a week times how ; 10 many people, times whatever youLneedlin terms of 11 people times the number of weeks. 12 MR. GUTIERREZ - Let me interrupt.- q 13 This does seem to be getting beyond the scope of what 14 we thought the meeting was going to focus on today.- 15 I think Bill Kane has captured 16 accurately the NRC staff's expectations of the 17 meeting, namely, after about 6 months of letter 18 writing we had hoped today to meet with you to a l 19 understand the types of issues you wanted us to ! 20 consider in doing an NRC inspection, and the level of l 21 participation you thought was appropriate'fer the 22 State to participate-in, and also for the County to a 23 have its issues heard. j 24 You kind of caught.us back on our _ - - - - . - . - _ _ _ --i
65 1 heels because that's-not what swe heard.- What.we 2 -heard was a,whole'different approach to an 3 inspections not an NRC inspection, but a. third-party 4 ; inspection. Since it is a novel approach, _have you 5 had discussions, or do you have any thoughts on how N 6 this effort would be financed? Have you had'any i
'7 discussions with the licensees?
L '8 HR. HUBDARD: Mr.-Gutierrez, the first b l 9 thing is that I think we did answer the two i l 10' questions. First we outlined the scope of what'we 11 feel needs to be'done, whether it's.your inspection
~
12 or an independent auditor. So we were responsive to 13 that. 14 Secondly, the question was,.how:could l 15 the State and' County best participate, and we 16 outlined a proposal.on how we would participate. I 17 So we feel that,' contrary to.what you-18 just said, we've been totally responsive to the-19 purpose of the meeting.
. 20 HR. GUTIERREZ -Let me just clarify 21 one point. I thought, as Hr. Kane referred to-the
~
22 November 25, 1986-letter from the Consumer Protection' 23 Board in New York, that it was participation in an
> 24 NRC inspection, and that's what led me to conclude AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC, (215) 545-7003
i 66 1 that a'whole different proposal has been put on'the 2 table today. 3 HR. JOHNSTON: Didn't I' understand I i 4 though that they said that this is one proposal, and 5 not the only exclusive proposal? -This is one thing 6 we can talk about. You have not totally ruled'out an 7 NRC inspection? 8 HR..BLAUs No. 'As Mr.-Dynner said,,we 9 are.not going to walk out of the room. 10 MR. JOHNSTON: Under the scope hf i 11 audit section, what Mr. Hubbard talked about, if we 12 workedz out with you more details on what you would 13 .like to see down in those various areas, and'we made. I 14 a. good effort to incorporate that kind of material ; 15 into the inspection, you have not ruled out that.you 16 would' find that an, acceptable.way to' proceed? , 17 MR. DLAU: We are open to' discussion. 18 HR. DYHNER: Scope is one aspect. If 19 we-are going to have an audit that-is done solely by' 20 HRC personnel, then I think we want to go beyond: that 21 and talk about aspects.of representatives, 22 consultants of the State and the County being 23 involved in that in a more hands-on basis than-the-24 steering committee approach. i AREA-WIDE PEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
i
-l 67 1 We have not done that,'and Jay is 2- quite correct. We haven't done that because.we.
3 wanted-to lay on'the-table.for your consideration 1 4 this. alternative # 3 1
)
5 HR. JOHNSTON: Could you do anything I i' 6 on the spot here and lay on the. table'now something 7 'that is-intermediate between an. independent oneland 8 one solely by the NRC?.In other words, do you have i 9 some suggestions as to how you all would~ participate
-10 in an NRC-conducted inspection which.was effectively 11 . responsive to your concerns for content?
12 MR. BLAU: 1Give us a few moments. 13 (A discussion held off the record.) 14 HR. DYNNER: In response to 15 Mr. Johnston's comment, our feeling is we would not 16 like to sit here and pull things out of the air on 17 the issue of participation. 10 What we prefer, and I think is fair, 19 is for you to consider our proposal. If aspects of' 1 20 it are not acceptable to you.and youLlet us know 1 21 that, and if after considering our suggestions, you { 22 believe that you want this to be NRC personne'l taking 23 the lead, and you reject the idea of an' independent 24 auditor, then what we would like to do is present to
,l AREA-WIDE FEDERAL. REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003- ,,a -
L l 2< t
'68-
, i 1 you,perhaps-in'. writing $so'that'you<willimoretimej
~
2 to.look at'it, our. proposal.cfor the-degree.and the- {; 3 specifics offparticipation.; , Then'we:could~have i fl 1 4 something ? concrete' to ' ta'1k about.Ein that ' a'spect. < l 5 LWe made a proposal. ItEsounds'almost' ) 6 -ac.if7youLare-saying, wel1~, we migh't rejectfit,cand. 4
, -j D
7 if7 we'did'rejectrit,-what would youfsay?. .That'si 8 something?I'think=.we:need'to;, spend"a,little_ more time 9 considering.. ' 10 HR; JOHNSTONV I was t'yingsto r get;as! 1
'll' . many' possibilities out'.on the table as'.I:codid. 11 '.1 12 MR. DYNNER: Sure.-I'd'idn't'mean-that J 13 in a negative.way.
y 14
- MR . JOH'NSTON: T'here are'a spectrum of 15 interests.
16 ' MR. KANE :11have to-go back!torwhat'15 17 said before, andE thatLis,Ethat there are.two/ issues-
,1
- ~18 that I see here'that have-been art'iculated.- One is.
19 . NRC credibility, and.'the..other-is timing,Lbeingfable: 20 to pull oftHa~ resource-intensive . inspection inca.
. 21 timely. manner priorsto July lat.
22 I can' t~ commedt on the . firs t orie. 'I' 23 - nimply can't accept the first'one as a general 24 premise.- AREA-WIDEEFEDERAL REPORTING, INC.'(215))545-7003L'
. 69 1 The.second, in-looking;at the 2 proposal I don't see how.this would accelerate the.
3 timing of:an inspection. 4 It's fair to say right-now that-I
^
5 personally have some misgivings witi the proposal 6 from the standpoint of its.being able to produce 3 7 something in a timely fashion, if I can envision'the 8 4 parties that~you propose trying to' agree to'allfof; 9 the aspects that I cited. earlier,'the conduct ofcan l 10 inspection. There is little point in conducting an
-i 11 ' inspection until all of'those aspects.are agreed to.
12 by all 4 parties.. That, to me, creates 1a fundamental 13 problem-with the timing.- 14 The second issue I would like to have - 15 developed -- let me deal with the second issue 16 'later. Let's go back to the. timing issue. 17 HR. DYNNER: The response on timing i 10 , from our point of view is, I think you 19 misunderstood. We did not say that we wanted the 20 inspection to be completed by July lat. .
.21 We said that'we understand that LILCO 22 will have conclu'ded its current phase of. low power-23 testing or about July lot, and that we would want to 24 have, to the extent possible, the machinery for this' l
AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC..(215) 545-7003'
3 70 1 inspection ready so that LILCO would not be gding 2 .back to low power testing before the inspection was 3 completed which would be subsequent to July lat. 4 MR. JOHNSTON: Why does the inspection 5 have anything to do with their operating schedule,'if
'6 we'are not inspecting the interior of the plant?
7 MR..HUEBARD: It does, and it 8 doesn't. First of all, we-would have preferred'that 9 this inspection be done before you"just authorized. 10 them to'go back up to power. We are really'saying, 11 okay; that before.they go.back up to power,Hthis is 12 an issue that ought to be behind us. It's not-13 dotting I's and' crossing T's. We're talking about, 14 does the plant meet its regulatory commitments.- 15
~
We think that's an import' ant-enough 16 issue, particularly the record we have.here, that 17 that ought to be resolved before they go back upito 18 power. We want to move just as fast as possible. 19 And, Mr. Kane, this idea of erosion-20 of confidence, you have to'think that the'NRC.has j l 21 done a lot of independent inspections now since 1980 22 and '81 in construction and' design. This is not a 23 new concept. So do not take it personally. It-has. 24 no reflection on the people in this room, that AREA-WIDE FEDERAL' REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
71 ' 1 proposal. i 2 I was trying to come up with a. 3 proposal'that the. people in the State.and the county' 4 could get behind. It's.a-proposal that'we had made H 5 to LILCO to settle QA contentions many many years 6 .ago. This idea'of independent third parties coming 7 in, it represents all of our interests, and'it's a- ! 8 . general way that in this'particular industry some of j l 9 these problems have been resolved in'a-timely fashion j
.J
;1 10 and with technical adequacy.
11 1 feel that somehow.you are taking 12 this much too personally, rather thanfrecognizing ; 13 that this is a methodology that is being used by the I 14 HRC staff consistently to resolve broad technical" 15 problems where you need to pour a fair. amount'of 16 resources into it.. 1 17 MR. KANE: I have a series of-18 correspondence on this subject. I have to say that 19 that's the central theme to all of this 20 correspondence. 31 MR. COLLINS: The statements which I 22 heard here about the ability of the:NRC'to do an 23 inspection which Suffolk County has presented is not 24 totally consistent with the memorandums and the AREA-WIDE PEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215)~545-7003
t 72 1 ' documentation of concerns.that we~ received rrom the
'2 State of New York, some of which Mr. Blau has' signed 3 .for Mr. Kessel.
4 Let me be specific here. "We believe 5 there is need for involvement of the State and other 6 interested parties in the. inspection and for the' 7 establishment of a means to assure that the' process. 8 of the inspection and-its results are substantially 9 sound and credible". 10 That's a technical argument;Enot.a 11 credibilit'y argument. 12 "By barring such an interested party 13 from participation, the ~1 HIC staf f would- create an-14 inference that the. staff has'something to hide".
!15 'Those types of statements do not 16 address the perspective.wh1ch you have provided here 17 so far as the basis for your having to be on the 18 inspection. These are very personal arguments from 19 the State of New York on the NRC's ability to 20 'inde' pendently perform an inspection without your j 21 participation. ,
22 HR. BLAU: You keep g~oing back and 23 forth with the erosion of confidence issue. Our 24 concern is that, given the facts =in this situation I,
4
',qu.M pO. y % :pl< ,Q:. gy lV/ff'y MPp,.W,,?.'?b
.MM(rvWMBWR/ #)';MM,.%MW.AQMkMM,*g*/QQ.$y@W.W' . .
yM&M %KkgM,%%,, @MQ- .M2,4M444.{ &fo!, ,Q.s q:p d 5%
,}TS %q $. 4 +.%.%r -- M i$r.1 t..'%*. .f % M s c %...l %. .$$$ k sg. % .7.q Q W $ 3. . K ,.jja %.. }.$
s a
,rfe-v T e f.yp : n. n ,f.c.,/s~,.:,,v.~.,.;>nj.A .:y .,
.: .3/
's. y. w .
,r*.,n:?: w. .t. ;...
.A. . . a. ,axf,w,s.
W::
. ye..~. !
. s. -
. p '/ a/rA?- .. fd /- v.,a r. y/ A .M. -
,/. a e
.? f r. . v.: . -v%. ~./V.gf ,s. A . e. J .r e'./ s ' y;* ?/. A v f,/.c*.
? .:f.
- t. Y
&'[:kW. 4.w G-% *.:/;,:rd1A .;
. . ~ /. - J
! :M $..
2.. W h. '.W. .,gM.k,W,.d.C.- ;kM.x q.,
/ :
'M 'J2NM::M@c . . ,n .n. .., s, q ..'M$[/.N: .
, ,.. , , . . , . , M,.:M.. , :;$@. ..
n? 4,. ,.: r .
? .
A,s, . . . .o. . y@, 6.p.,. : .!.4. .. %? .. ..
,%,. .. \ ,,::. ,W .e.. %. . .:? ?. 2.- W..,, M. ,.. ..::%. ? N. !. ?.,. ,,.: .?.:. ? ....
. ~ .:r-
,_ . g -
- y l ' ' *
&* " .*$ g ',.} Q \$ ,Q s .4' . ' . , ,. '-
.'$ f'k.. - . ,
x3f,gv v,,. ; < . .
.. .'*. :--.[ - % . f,' 'Y.*,(,'.
,.<./.,....~....a...- ..
- *-...:', * .., .', . . -,:,. ll,.. ,. ...l',._.,
'n
.~,\,,
' r '..w f., f. .. }. l<. d_,. ~ - -
t - _ /
. . , . . '. .'>. c
;p}')ei i 4 +\t v. :
m~,. *',,.t.n-. , , < ~ ,,~cc(,; a. .. c.
. . ~ .,< , . c , ' .:a
. , ' ' e, . , . c. c c, ': . .'.' ,'6 ' ..?.. .'
< .- < * - ? ': . ,
' n '.'.,..,,i,,.s'?y
,q..;;'...._-" * ,'
.., f.4 pt9/pQ v'. .._
w ,4 , , 3 l :f W @.
.c.... 4
.L*.) .- .a.i
.a .y... g g . , ,:,c .e s 1 ..
~t
. 4 ,
>.. . a .. 4. 3 . . . . .
.,I:sf. ~:_.'.'n'_'.:-
g 6.. . . , .# . .. - : . s
'.'... . * ' * . ~ . '*l ;'y.
t $f 4 g . f
' " ~
' :','L ' . . - 2' . . . . . ') .
' p (',98f D{ Dfs, j /,, J. j .)f . p .j.}. l'f. . _ ' ':_ 2.- .,'N.- . \. . Q- .'.] '.b* '. _ ' _ .? ~' ' -{ ' ' ..' ; V ' . *l [ [ : ' h ' . ' f ^.
'c -
{:$%r. - . , (, '. . . - uG*eiq 4,- j '% f.jf'. sr t x) . N,'..' . m
~
.; -s ,
....:......./.... .....:.- -
'.- .- .,i.
1, ' . ..; ,. . ' ,,'.-... <f 8 - r .; .
, '.' - - .f .
.}e -
,8 j ._ .. . , , ,
p .,_
.',.F'- .'.. . , %, ,
.1 .
, . g
.q
+
)- "
(' '* e g g % %
. . . . . . - g -
'.g f ' fj ' . . ')
he '
, ,) ' .
]). ';) ,) ) ; g , , j. _p , .
, f ':l.'I, ,_ . . ,
'y f- 'o
, , L .. .
. u. .,
,- r r'
i- *
, W ' .- .
V
,) ;}
, ) .. - - )' '
) . ,, .) .
') ..- i ~ ,
)
,,l j
~
j
. i *.f ( , g ge,
. " . * . ." , to i,.3
.i g
.' ;'.. ' , -'. ' 4 * . ,
.t n i , ,. og -
,. , , . g[. .' .,
.- i;
?
. ,;.' < ..t v . .. ;. . . .
g' , g' . O. .
, ' g
.6 'l s e .s
. ! .J .
's
- c. .
l r-
. J_ ,7 J,,
j l~ _.]
~
.'t ^ ,'._
_3, . r . -
. ' - q. t
, ,,, . .' . ; f 8
.,t. t . - / -
n $ W. S j 1.. ,- ') ..-(} -. l p ,
',V
'] _ _; [,. 3.' ? . _
l .i ' 6 8 1 . s q
*- I *-
[ - .
$ = . . ,
. j .. ,
.^ ,
,, - . ., .' , ,',-S.
- i .
, . .. ). ..
). , . ', . f ) _, _ l
}.
.' ,I y -(* ,. _ [, _ .. _ . ,. .
8
.. .- ... - L t _ _ . ,
r , . . , " . * . . * - [ . ..,gg S - - - -
, ,. J /. -.. . .
, ,- 3 y 3 .
~__ _, f j.. C]', f h.g ':s.'g l_ l.f j;, . } y * . l [ , . n; , * ; ^ ,i_ j.ff q .
L,'
, .gggf, .. j'
, 9g ,O ,- . g ; q' . . , n .* , g g , , _ , ' ' y - . gW , , "
\-
* . , ,*' . . . ,* .. , ' ' ' ' .- , .'4 . '. - ', , ' '
e ,' .' ..'.'..,s','e,e',.4,'?, A<'.. ' . ' ' . '
.- ' , " - ., ' ' , ' . " , ' . ' , I ' - e O '
8 O _,
,,*'W (
4 e *
,g ,[ . I O
- E
_% [ 4 0 8
#; ,.s' 8 -
', ' . , ' , * , *4** ?
, . ' . ' , * , *.. ,a .',, _ ; . , ', *> .a % . ' ;, g ' , 'q
',, ,*,~ . ',.*.',.l','-l,,..'_.,%,.q.
,s. , ., , ' , : *. . -.- ',
', , . o ..\,*,
. ,. '*',..*p%,. , , , , , , * ,.
, ' ,,. ' ' ). . % . . %;. ',, *
,.y,._ .-
._.,, : ...,.g
~ , ? l - '. %: ,. . -' ,.s* .%.. . \. .s s,, .,.,..e.;.. .
, , s , . . . '. K. : ~, . . .q. ~s.. ; , . .
- .h } ,.
,' ' . . - . .. 5
' es 4k -j [.
'), .5 * ,,, ,k
. .c' ,..y ,,, ;.,
. . - ~
w;f;. x..Q,.. s,;x..
.a ., .n e,y..,,,,..,....a..,,,,.,,...,,,,.x'
, f,V.h.*f,'%.*>
f W, %*j'/*/ ^
,3,* ~f, ,.
+
.n ,> ,., ;s%..*~;~;.
d';; . ~-;=.. ' ..\..
*;%;9'*; , ;~; ;\;.
f
?*.
,g.; ,N.g 3, <,.y;*g.
'..t e d. . ,.% %
. q p,.uy
. a j ' * /Q . *(.'g.
- f =,, .
;>jp[; *
\,,"y /8 j %
,. , s;-;% , *
*/g.*Q* 8;. */* f'e f * [<j%
. y' *f ,a%j p. f ;"b,.% f' f t
' } ,*m .QQ'*h%f.%,..**; fb Pp'-
f fy%;'fo'Q'
- , u , .' . .
g,
._llW:,Q:y.sw' lsf*,%w%p/sj pl<p. App; ,y%eYf:<j /*
v p, p pppt /,% .* .- f/*p,b/'r j & ,h p ;~,p,*/*p p /' ;?/*s/' %y p?./'p ;-/-/' p ;. w*
- pf Y? h k{
pf . + :< ?we.
'4:Q,w; Y Y '
Ybk h h Q,.MWWWWMsgN am sm
. < , mmMwn:. .w w..m&M:.hgsh$u..ww$$gsawsi. ygge
73 1 for whatever reason, for whatever happened on the NRC 2 side, public confidence was not served. 3 This does not mean that we are 4 questioning'the NRC's integrity. . It'just means'that 5 from what we see on the outside, we did not like.the 6 results, and we did not have confidence that the 7 process was carried out properly in this instance. 8 That is not a general condemnation of the NRC. It is-9 not questioning the overall integrity of the NRC. 10 MR. DYNNER: By'the NRC, I was talking 11 about -- 12 MR. BLAU: The staff. o 13 MR. DYNNER: -- Region -l' inspection 14 personnel. , 15 The County and the State have both i 16 taken positions publicly which draw into question i 17 over and over again issues concerning whether the NRC 18 as a whole has acted objectively in the LILCO 19 licensing history. I think that that,-in and'of. 20 itself, is a matter of public record, and that the 21 citizens of Suffolk County, and to that extent New i 22 York State, do have a concern about the relationship j 23 that has permeated the licensing proceedings-between ! 24 the NRC and LILCO. l AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC..(215) 545-7003
r - m , 74
, R 1 HR. COLLINS: This isn't in reference-2 to-that. This is-in reference-to a letter to -
3 Dr. Hurley, she Regional-Adminis'trator of Region l'. 4 HR._DYNNERs Signed by? 5 HR. COLLINS: The State of New. York. , 6 Concerning a-planned inspection very specific to 7 Suffolk County to be conducted by Region 1.
'B HR.'DYNNER: And? -
'i 9 HR. COLLINS: And, therefore, it q 10 focusen on this staff's ability, Region l's ability; 11 to perform an inspection.
12 HR. DYNNER: I tried to answer you
)
13 from the County's point of view. Mr. .Blau can speak 14 for the State's point of. view as well.. 15 HR. COLLINS: Am I missing something 16 here? 17 HR. DYNNER: From the County's. point' 18 of view what,we have said were two things. Numbe r: 19 one, there has been an' erosion of confidence in'the ] 20 NRC,-and we believe, whether or not you: agree with
>21 whether we believe that, that erosion occurred 22 correctly or was justifiable, it is a. fact; .that 23 Suffolk County and the-State do have an erosion of 24 confidence'in the NRC, and specifically~with respect AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
i 75 1 to LILCO and the Shoreham plant, number one, and l 2 that's there. 3 Humber two, we've raised the issue, 4 not in terms of.the competence of specific NRC 5 inspectors,' but we've raised the issue in terms of 6 resources and the timing.
'7 Now, if you are telling.me that we 8 shouldn't worry about resources and timing because' 9 you will do whatever.needs1to be done and you'Ye got' 10 adequate inspection personnel to throw at this 11 project as quickly as possible, then that issue will 12 disappear, and'we would be left-with the issue, which 13 you have talked about, of erosion of confidence.
i 1 14 That erosion is there. The public perception is 15 there. What we proposed is something to deal with 16 that icaue. 17 MR. KANE: Let's speak' to Buffolk 18 County and the gtate of New York with respect to the 19 erosion of confidence issue. Is that limited, Region" 20 1, is that limited to this issue? 21 HR.,DYNNER: Absolutely not. You know 22 that. You read the newspapers. Jay can read the 23 pleadings. You know what has been said about the 24 NRC, and we believe with great justification.
y_ , _ __
,76 1 'MR. KANBs I understand.
2 MR. DYNNER: We don't believe that 3 Region 1 is insulated from directions and pressures 4 from Washington either. 5 MR. KANE: What is unique about-this-1 6 inspection, apart from any other inspection:that we-i 7 do? I would have to read from what_you'said that' 8 your confidence'in Region 1 is bigger.than just the 9 issue of training and qualifications.~ So when I do 10 an inspection up there,~as we do every month with the 11 resident inspectors, as we do programati'c 12 inspections, what_ confidence do I have here that ; 13 Suffolk County and the State of New York view with 14 confidence what we are putting in any of those 15 inspection reporta? , 16 HR. DYNNER: You don't. 17 MR. KANE: What makes.this-inspection-18 unique? j 19 MR. DYNNER: I will let Mr. Hubbard 20 speak to the specifica. 21 The general answer to-your question 22 of what makes this one one that we focused on, is , 23 because it is an inspection which has shown what we 24 believe to be pervasive inadequacies and deficiencies j AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, I NC . -( 215 ) 545-7003 d
.77 1 in the training and qualification program. :I am;not-2 the expert on this. Hr. Hubbard is . - I don't know of 3 any other inspections that have beenl held recently 4 which show that there is a similar pervasive 5 . inadequacy in a particular area of the plant, but '1 6 this one is one we know about.
t 0 7 Therefore, it 1 s one that we are. 8 concerned about. It's one that we have had a LILCO ., 9 audit on. It's one that we've'had the NRC do~ 10 something on, which, I' gather from our technical ; I 11 consultants, they believe wan'not in their view an 12 adequate response to the deficiencies shown in the-4 13 LILCO audit. 14 Is that correct, Mr. Hubbard? 15 MR. HUBBARD -Yes. 16 MR. COLLINS: But if the NRC' 17 confidence is croded, what about the NRC's' ability to 18 do-inspections at, Pitzpatricks, Nine Mile One, Nine 19 Hile Two -- Are we delving towards -- 20 MR. DYNNER: We are talkingLabout 21 LILCO and Shoreham. The same staff.
.)
22 MR. COLLINS:. We are talking about the 23 State of New' York's confidence in the Region 1 24 staff's ability to do an inspection without undue j l l AREA-WIDE PEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003 ; y
- - _ _ _ _ - -. - - _ . _ - -_A
4 1 78 j 1 1 pressure from whomever; in some cases maybe our 2 technical competence, about er plant which is limited 3 to low power, versus potentially,-if.you give that i
~
4 all-as true, .a very real concern for operating plants
'S in high-population areas, a plant which_just received:
6 a license which'is going through an'NTOL process on' 7 the way to a high power license. O HR. DYNNER: From the County'In; point 9 of view, Joel, let:me just say this. i 10 LILCO.and everybody in the United. 1 1 11 States' recognizes that the LILCO-Shoreham plantuis a- J l 12 unique situation. It's a situation upon which there 13 are hearings held in; Washington.in which1the 14 President of the United States and.the Energy 15 Department and everybody else has ~gotten invo'1ved' 1
-l 16 with, upon which there have been documents'and
]
i 17 disclosures made~concerning manipulations in the l 1 18 highest offices in this land-to get this plant 19 licensed. So that from the County's point of view we 20 are not talking about any other plants. We'are 21 talking about LILCO and we are talking about'the 22 Shoreham plant. 23 MR. BLAU: From our perspective we 24 were talking about this one'particular. situation AREA-WIDE. FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003-
~_ -
79 1 involving this one particular plant. That is the f 2 whole purpose of all of this correspondence.1 I think 3 it's a mistake to try to expand to what is said here 4 to reach a'more' global conclusion. We are trying to-5 focus very narrowly here. I think that when we start 6 getting into whether we have confidence in the NRC e 7 Region 1 staff 8s efforts at other plants in the 8 State, we are getting off base.here. 9 MR. COLLINS,s.So you are not concerned 10 about our ability to perform inspections. 11 HR. BLAU: I.am not speaking to that. 12 I am speaking simply to this one'particular 13 situation. 14 HR. COLLINS: If I ask you the 15 question, which'I did, are'you'concernedEabout,the 16 NRC staff's ability to perform inspections at those 17 other sites -- 18 MR. BLAU: I don't want to start 19 getting into that kind of a question here. We didn't ! 20 raise it in'the first place. 21 HR. GUTIERREZ: Bam, let me 22 characterize what I think is happening. z3 We started this meeting talking about
- 24 NRC credibility. I think Saa's lines of questions AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003 2
_m______.______._____m
80-1 - are going.to State credibility and suffolk County
~
2 credibility in b' ringing these concerns, and offering l 3 in one hand lete s cooperate, we a r e s inc e r e , . o r <nt .j 4 the other. hand, we read volumesJof material generated . 1 i 5 by both the-State andlSuffolk County _ attacking the 1
'6 staff on a continuous basis.
7 So I think Sam's~ questions are not-8 totally out of place 1when we read on a daily bas'is in: ~ 9 pleadings, and I cite you very. good example if the 10 May 5, 1987 joint. motion of Buffolk County and the 11 State of New York where they characterize the NRC 4 12 staff as acting beyond its-authority, as in. view of 13 the previous notorious effort of the staff.to help I 14 LILCO evade NRC regulations requi' ring an exemption in 15 an effort to harmonize the. regulations out of 16 existence. 17 MR. DYNNERs,Was I speaking about.a 18 Region 1-inspection? 19 MR. GUTIERREZ: No,.but in your 20 February 26, 1987 letter f' rom Herb. Drown toLJay 21 Gutierrez you state, "The conduct of the inspection" 22 -- which is the subject of today's meeting.-- "Dy a 23 team composed exclusively-of NRC employees would not" 24 be credible". J AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003 3 a
81 1 MR. DYNNER: That's right. 2 HR. GUTIERREZ: So the point that I 3 think Sam is getting is, why should we believe you?- 4 HR. DYNNER: You are suggesting that 5 there is some kind of contradiction or 6 inconsistency. There isn't any inconsistency.
.7 We'said, and I just went through it, 8 'and I.will say it'again, it's.the position of the 9 County and the State that the NRC staff has not'been 10 disinterested in the licensing proceeding. The 11 statements which you just quoted.are just a.part of.
12 the position of the State and County regarding the 13 Shoreham plant. 14 It is also the. position of some of 15 those sitting in the room, including myself, that 16 that does not mean at all.that I think.the particular 17 NRC inspectors in Region 1 are incompetent ~or lack 18 integrity. 19 What we are talking about is, that 20 there are influences, and there is a perception that-21 you guys sitting out here in Region 1 are not totally 22 devoid and totally uninfluenced by what goes on in 23 Washington, by directions from your superiors, and by 24 the NRC as a whole. That is a fact of life, and that
, AREA ~ WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC.-(215) 545-7003
4 82 1 is why there is an issue of credibility. 2 11R . GUTIERREZ: On both sidet. 3 MR. DYNNER: That may be on both sidos' 4 because when somebody is part of an organization
. l 1
5 which is attacked and has things said about it, the jj 6 ' natural reaction is to say, the.other guy who is-j 7 making those charges is'aEbum. I'm sorry if'you feel- 1 8 that way.- i 9 MR. KANE: Against that background of l i 10 what you said,.and I've got to get back to this, how .
]
11 does a special treatment of this unique inspection 12 area solve any problems for us in. Region 1 with ( l 13 respect to the Shoreham~ plant, this one., discrete, j 14 narrow area? I 15 MR. HUBBARD: Let me attempt to answer 16 that. As I am sure Mr. Gutierrez is-aware of, the 17 County and LILCO and the NRC have-worked out I i 18 settlements on litera11y' hundreds of mattersLrelating I l 19 to Shoreham; that.there are a number of what we'll i a 20 call technical issuen that have been resolveable. It' 21 is not like the County has opposed everything. The-22 County has settled and settled and settled things in- ; 23 this particular proceeding. 24 This is an issue-that I think all of' AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTINGr INC. (215) 545-7003-
^
r, l 83 I us sitting here feel "is amenable to an agreement, and 2 we have proposed such an agreement. We have a 3 history, that's~the State.and the County, in a number 4 of technical areas related to Shorehan working out 5 agreements to jointly solve the problem with LILCO 6 and the NRC. You have to look at that history. l 7 There'are some other areas where,-as O you say, there has been'an agreement to disagree over 9 the years, but there have been'more issues, and the 10 licensing board and decisions has praised'the group 11 for getting together and reaching settlements. I 12 think I speak for all 3 of us that thiis is an area
~
13 that looks like it's amenable to a cooperative 14 agreement. 15 J What I keep hearing is that theye'is 16 no emphasis on the fact that we've agreed in .>t 17 literally hundreds of areas. Rather, you want to
.h
/
,;f 18 dredge up these few areas where there has been some 19 disagreement which everybody in this' room is aware 20 of.
21 MR. KANE: I just have to understand , 22 why this area is unique. Why is it that'a settlement
,i -
23 in this area which will, if we go through with it and-24 we carry it out, and you can agree with the results f, ARBA-WIDE PEDERAL REPORTING, INC4 (215) 545-7003 ,'
,Y p >
1 / 84; 1 of it, let's postulate that far ahead that-we can, 2 the next issue, where:are we? 3 MR. DYNNER: I don't know. 4 MR. BLAUs I don't know what the next 5 issue is. 6 MR. KANE: That's why I asked the 7 question of you, is your concern limited with the'NRC 8 Region 1 one inspection staff' limited to this 9 discrete issue, and your answer was no. 10 MR. DYNNER: My answer was right now, 11 I don't know of any other issue that I have to 12 discuss with you. We have not come in here and'said 13 that we wanted the NRC staff in Region 1 to.be -
~
14 replaced. We have not asked that Mr. Warren be-15 pulled and that somebody be put in in his place'who 16 is independent. 17 MR. KAllB: Maybe I misunderstood. 18 MR. DYNNER: We do have an inspection 19 report which shows what we regard, and what our 20 consultant, Mr. Hubbard, shows us to be a pervasive 21 inadequacy in the training and qualification, program 22 with no corrective action; that the NRC Region 1; 23 follow-up inspection which commented on'that in our 24 view did not view those findings with what we regard -
. AREA-WIDE FELERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
, < m
y
,+ ,
my
.,s g :it;7-"<, ' s --
c c
,f f- 0 - 85
- f. I
/
1 as the proper degree of attention and the proper >&, . . -
, ,1 :,
, t 2 degree of concEh,,, / W
< s 3 EL KANE: Okay., . j; 4 i HR.-DYNdER:
,b Therefore,'twe8ve come 5 back to you on. that/L particular' issue and said, hey, 6 guys, we'are very cocicerned. We would like to sit
/.)
7 down with you at a table _and~ attack this is' sue. 8 That's what we hope to do.
~
9 Does this mean we are nevey going to ! 10- have a disagreement again in the future 7<Of Ecurse l . f 11 not. Does it mean.that we are going to suddenly" t'
).
t l believe that the NRC and Washington has change'd its 12 _ i 13 stripes? Of course nc<t.- It is.an attempt f.o' deal 3 14 with a specific technical issue involving around the
/;
15 safety of the plant. 16 As. Dick said,~I have,been involved ~1n i 17 litigation with Shoreham in..Which I settled with g 18 LILCO and the staff probably 3 out or 5 technical-4 19 issues that were under litigation. 1 There.are safety 2 20 issues. They don't have to do specifically with;
)
21 whether LILCOlgets a license for the Shoreham plan % ' 22 or not, and the approach consistently of those' ;
. ,! )
. 23 dealings wita those issues has been', let's get down !
t , 24 to the job'of resolving those issueshandnotworry 5 l I. f AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, I NT. - - ( 215 ) 545-7003 _ - /
g-- . 86. 1 about hurt feelings in other areas. I am not saying 2 you have hurt' feelings, but~what you sound like'is 3 that.you do. 4 MR. KAHEs 1 8veigot to go back and.ask 5 the questionLI asked before because I must have 6 , misinterpreted your answer. The question was, with
'7 respect to.the erosion of Region 1 inspection stagt I
8 credibility, is it' confined to this issue. 9 HR. DYNNER: Right now, the only issue 10 that we have before us-and which we have-a concern is 11 this issue. I don't.know. Maybe there are others I 12 don 8t know'about,'but based.upon my.own knowledge -- 13 and if Mr. Hubbard'and Mr. Blau have something else, 14 they can speak up.- Right'now, we are not, and.have 15 have not said to you that we are' concerned.about . 16 issues B, C, D and E. There aren't any other issues ; 17 on the tabic. There is this issue on the table. 10 So: I really can't understand what you 19 are asking for. If you are asking for me to give you. 20 a global bicasing on everything else, and saying"this, 21 is the only thing; that"we are concerned about your 22 ' credibility, I.can't say that. If you ask me, is-23 this the only issue on the table and the only concern: 24 we have right now regarding the operation from a AREA-WIDE' FEDERAL REPORTING,-INC. (215) 545-7003
87: 1 safety. point of view of the; plant, that's the only 2 issue right now that's on the table that I know'of. 3 Something eine'may come up. TIf'it 4 comes up, there i~s not a great deal of confidence that any particular area of the NRC can insulate 5 6 itself from this administration and it's hell b'ent 7 for leather desire to' license the Shoreham plant no 8 matter.what, from our poin't of-view, or from other 9 kinds of influences that may come upon you or'other-
)
10 others on the staff. But right now,'this is all we H l 11 are talking about, and this is right now our only , 12 concern with what Region l's' involvement is. 13 That is not an inconsistency to say 14 that that is not an attack-on the integrity and 15 competency of your. inspectors. It's talking'about.a 16 fact of life, and that is, the results of a~very 17 intense licensing effort which has been going on for ' 18 some years, and it has affected public perceptions 19 and it has.affected people. That's all I can 20 answer. 21 MR. KANE: I understood it the same 22 'way both times. 23 MR. GUTIERREZ: The only thing I:want-24 to add to Mr. Kane's questioning is to give you an-
. AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
88
'I appreciation, and maybe as a result of my comments, 2 you'll have something else to:say.; In the final 3 : analysis, whether'the NRC staff permits some' level of~
4 participation by the cou'nty'or'the state in its 5 inspection' effort, we've got to make a judgment' 6 whether we can do our mission, whether we can perform 7 our inspections with.you:along,.or whether your 8 presence is going to impede our mission.. I think1a 9 lot of our questioning goes to that. kind of issue, 10 mainly, if you think in all matters we have no 11 credibility, and you are going to accompany us for 12 purposes of looking at us, rather than focusing on 13 what the technical problems are at Shoreham,_that may f 14 be a factor to consider. , i 15 HR.~DYNNER: To.give you an. example --> 16 MR. GUTIERREZ: We are trying;to weigh ] 17 whether your participation is going to impede what we 18 see our mission to be, or whether it's going to aid { 19 it, and in the final analysis when we're focused on i 20 health and safety, that's got to be -- we need some j t 21 answers. 22 MR. DYNNER: I'll-give you an example. 23 We had a settlement on the operating and quality . 24 assurance procedures-aspects of this case in which AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003 ;
4 89 1 technical co'nsultants of the County participated with
.2 Region 1 staff on a daily basis in reviewing LILCO's-3 operating OA procedures, and everything I've heard
} : j '4 has'been that that'was a most successful resolution- ] l 5 of that issue. Impedence is not.the reason that-we j l 6 are here.
]
1 7 14r. Kane,-I don't want to ' force the d 8 issue, if it's something.you want'to think about, but 9 I have the feeling that your view is,.and I would 10 like you to tell me what your view is, that our 11 proposal for an independentEaudit is not #acceptable 12 to you, and there is# no point in our going away_from l 13 here thinking that you are going to considerLit, if 1 l 14 you have already.made up'your' mind. 15 MR. KANE: We will consider"'it. 16 That's cicar. 17 The points'that.I was driving: at was, t 18 first of all, you have to understand what is the ; 19 problem you are trying to solve, and this is a 20 proposal to solve the problem. There are two 21 problems that have been' identified to me that this 22 proposal solves. One is NRC Region 1 technical staff 23 credibility, and two,.it will cause'the inspection-to 34 be conducted in a more timely fashion. AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215); 545-7003-
90 1 Those are the only two reasons!that
'2 have been put on the table as to why this" approach' 3 should be used, as opposed.to some other approach 4 which would be the NRC conducts an inspection, and i
5 there is oversight by the State of thnt : York with 6 their technical experts, and they can make an 7 independent judgment concerning the adequacy of.tho' 8 NRC staff ~ inspection, and you don't make that a l 9 matter of public record. That's the other proposal. 10 That's the other approach that I can see. 11' We have heard'no discussion of'the 12 latter proposal. I understand;why. I understand. 13 that you want us to consider this approach, and if we 14 reject it, you want the opportunity to come back'with 15 an alternative approach, if I understood you 16 correctly before. So that's the way we will 17 proceed. la MR. DYNNER 'Let me respond in part to 19 say that I think we have gone beyond that insofar as-20 we are saying that aside from the credibility issue 21 and asido from the timing of staffing' issue, I think 22 there is a real issue that the County and State-23 believe that the participation of our consultants 24 would give an added dimension to the issues that we AREA-WIDELPEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003: '
91 4 1 talk about in here under stee' ring committee, that-is,
-)
2 to a discussion of the audit scope, of the' program 3 plan and sampling procedures, the audit methodology, 4 the acceptance criteria, and those issues, which I think are issues which arose out of the.specifica of ! 5 6 the NRC reponse to the LILCO audit. i 7- MR. KANE: True, but they are common j l a 0 to both. k 9 MR. DYNNER: We have' personnel, and 1 10 Mr. Hubbard is one of them,'who have a specific level j i 11 of expertise and experience that would add a 12 dimension to what you.are doing. 13 HR. JOHNSTON: Do you have any of that 14 material with you this afternoon? 15 MR. DYNNER: No. 16 MR. JOHNSTON: The' point or the scope' 17 of this meeting was to' talk about the kinds of 10 suggestions that you have. It counds to me like this 19 is the nature of those' kinds of suggestions. I was i' 20 going to ask under your scope of the audit'if you q 21 have specifica to offer this afternoon, to take soue 32 positive ideas out of this part of the meeting? ) 23 MR. HUBBARD: I think that in 24 something we could provide to you in writing. I I l AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING,'INC. (215) 545-7003
92 1 think-we wanted to lay out today the sorts of (
'2 questions that we thought:should be addressed, 'and I 3 think we have"done that.
4 MR. JOHNSTON: In your scope of! the 5 audit here? 6 MR. HUBBARD: Yes. We have really.
- 7 said that there is the. management attitude aspect, 8 there.is.the program itself, there is the 9 implementationEof the' program, there is the level of' 10 staffing. .
11 MR. JOHNSTON: In the utility's QA? 12 MR. HUBBARDs.No, I'd'idn't.say that. 13 It's level of staffing.in general. , 14 MR. WIGGINS: Across the board? 15 MR. UUBBARD: Across the board. 16 That's what'this training and qualification was. 17 This was across the board.- Look at that audit. .This 18 was not' radiochemistry. This was the general ability 19 of LILCO to do' training and qualification of 20 personnel. 21 MR. WIGGINS: And the staffing you-22 discussed,.or the trainees or the trainers?- 23 MR. HUBBARD: Both. 24' MR. JOHNSTON: The~ staff.of,the 1 AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003' i
, 931 1 training department? 2 MR. HUBDARD: I'm coming back-to it as 3 a simple thing. If you think of puddings and chefs. , 4 If you go in and say, they've.got a great training 5 program, and they are really doing it now. Then you 6 say, but there is inadequate level of staffing. 7 Well, so what if.you've got a great' training program 8 and qualified people, if there aren't enough of 9 them. I think you've got to look at this in its
- 10. totality.
11 ' HR. WIGGINS: I. don't. understand how 12 that issue arose based on the audit. It doesn't 13 appear to come out in the audit that there is'a 14 concern for station staffing. ;
-15 HR. HUBBARD: That comes through if 16 you read your BALP reports and your inspection 17 reports over the years. Over and over again you 18 talked about inadequate levels of staffing and-too 19 many contracted personnel. If you say, okay, but 20 that's something that we don't want to end up with, 21 half of the loaf, to say we've got a training program 22 and we've got qualified people, and then something ]
23 goes wrong, and you say, well, we don't have enough o I 24 of them. That's the problem. !
)
L AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
94 1 - MR. WIGGINSs I am trying to get 2 comfortable with the idea that your proposal is 3 responsive to the problem at hand. There is nothing 4 in the audit report that I can see that says that 5 there is a staffing deficiency at the facility. , 6 We may have made comments, and I 7 can't quite quote them verbatim in SALP's. We
- 8. typically make comments about our perceptions of the- g 1
9 staffing and number of contractors versus the number i 10 of licensee employees. There are in SALP's that they i 11 can't be graded any lower than a category:3, which:is j 12 an acceptable Aevel of performance, although it has 13 some weaknesses. It could: be . improved. 4 l 14 We have-modo determinations about1 the l 15 adequacy of site staffing,-and have documented.those ; 1 l . 16 determinations in preparation for the' licenses that 17 have'been issued. We have made those findings 18 amongst ourselves. I don't see where that issue 19 comes from based on the audit. That's one item in 20 your proposed list that really doesn't come-to me 21 clearly based on the report that you were. reviewing. 22 I understand the management 23 commitment. I believe I know where that's coming 24 from. I think that's probably coming from the AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215)-545-7003
u
. 1 95 1 information tied up with the rad-chemistry technician.
2 issue. ; 3 MR. JOHNSTON: It goes beyond that. 4 MR. HUBBARD: It goes way beyond that. 5 The report itself says:-- 6 > HR. JOHNSTON: We will look~at that. s . 7 ' MR. C OLL'I NS t .That's gets backJto my 8 earlier question about your overviews, whether they ! i 9 were brought out in the NRC-report. I~think a 1 10 careful look at the NRC report will indicate that 11 they are. 12 HR. HUDDARD: I disagree. l A 13 HR. JOHNSTON: In the process of 14 development and implementation, that's the things like 1 15 having manuals. An example would-be not have I 16 comprehensive manuals forLtraining'of the engineers s
, 1 i
L 17 and management. L l 18 HR. HUBBARD: Yes. 1 19 MR. JOHNSTON: Those are some 20 i specifics which I think we can make use of, your l j t 21 suggestions, and put some.of those kinds of things.in 22 the audit and' inspections. You may have thought of-23 something more than we have.' 1 That's'the kinds of' j 24 things we would like to hear: about, any special li s l l
' AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING,'INC.-(215)'545-7003;
96~ 4 1 insights and suggestions you may have. 2 MR. HUBBARD: We don't have special --
~
3 MR. KANE: You have experience. What' 4 we were saying was, you.did a. report and you've got.a-5 presentation outline here in some general areas, but 6 in terms of'the conduct of an inspection, and I.am 7 sure that from your previous' background and 0 experience you've got some special insights as'to the 9 kinds of things you might look at to test out the 10 basic fundamental shortcomings that you see'in the 11 program from your review of the audit report and your 12 independent review. I think that that's the. kind of 13 thing that we would like to get at in terms of 14 structuring an inspection plan. 15 Today-we've talked about 16 generalities. I think 'we underst'and the. generalities 17 the same-way that you understood them, but I would 18 like to talk to another issue. l 19 Were you finished? 20 MR. JOHNSTON: Could I'have one more? 21 MR. KANE: Go ahead. 22 MR. JOHNSTON: I think we were getting-23 to the point where you would be willing to give us 24 some of that kind of information. I guess you don't AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
97-
'l
- 1 have it-'with you today. You said/you'would be 2 willing to send'it to us in.the mail. Am I hearing u 3 you right?
4 HR. HUBBARD: I think we can give you 5 that sort-of thing.
- 6 Again, as an ex-QA manager when'I.see-7 this' sort of a pattern, then'it's like Mr. Kane was 1 8 just suggesting,,I would want-to.come.up with a.
S . sampling plan where I woul'd look at all of that { i 10 organizations where they were training, and 11 'obviously,;the' training department I would be'more , t 12 interested in,.and maybe some others, but.I would 13' want to focus there. I would.want to sample some of u i 14 the others to make sure that they have the f 15 procedures. Some of it would depend:on what I.got'in' 16 the. interviews. They would tell me whereoI oughtito l 17 look at things. I think I havestried to',Lwithout-l 18 getting into all of the specifics ~, lay out a general 19 approach. 20 The question.on staffing levels, that1 21 can be more or less the amount of emphasis cn1 that. 22 I felt that I didn't want to end up with'saying that 23 everything in fine in training and the people are 24 qualified, and then later on.come up and say, but we AREA-WILE FEDERAL REPORTINGr'INC. (215)1545-7003
SS 1 have a concern that there aren't enough people,:and,
.2 by the way, in spite of this training, when you go 3 .out and really look at the' pudding, it .isn't.very, 4 good. The County's bottom line has to be in the-5 ' actual. quality of the operations.
6 MR. JOHNSTON: Our focus as well is on 7 the implementation'of the training program. -It's'not 8 how many hours a guy sat in class, but what does he 9 do when he goes and performs his-job. That's the 10 kind of slant'that one of our inspections goes after, 11 to look at that aspect. Our principal. function is 12 the pudding ~that you're talking about. So'we dofhave 13 that kind of emphasis. That's where it counts. 14 HR. HUBBARD: I think you can't go to 15 the extent of only being interested in.the pudding 16 because sometimes you do that. Let's just forget the 17 process and look at the result that-comes out oflthe' 10 process. But I.think at the same time'that in the
~
19 and that's what we all want, a good piece of 20 pudding. If we're talking.about the 40-yearLlife of 21 the plant and all that, then thero are some other ~ 22 reasons why we are very interested that there be a' 23 good-process. 24 MR. KANE: I wanted to talk about.the AREA-WIDE FEDERAL-REPORTING, INC.-(215) 545-7003-
4. 99 1 accompaniment issue. I will just deal-'with it in a
-2 1 theoretical sense,.since that is.not the proposal
- 3 that's on the table at the moment.
4 In the series of documents that we 5 created over the months here, the're was an issue that 6 came'up with respect to accompaniment. Certainly we 1 7 in Region 1 have tried'to work with the States very a closely in terms of where they had an~ interest in 9 observing inspections,.and how they were conducted-f l 10 and so forthe permitting 1the States to do that under, i 11 some guidelines, and that's been conducted for.a long 12 period of time in Pennsylvania, Hew Jersey, and in. 13 Vermont to a certain extent, and perhaps some others- i 14 which I'm omitting at this point. I 15 We have not extended that.to the 16 Countiens that, as best as I can tell, is probably ( 17 from the standpoint of efficiency. There are many 1 18 different entities out there, if you start looking at 19 political subdivisions. We kind of viewed it, I 20 think in the past, as the state being able to 21 represent the interest-of the local' entities, ; 22 political subdivisions, what have you. 23 We have before^us, I think, a 24 request,~and I'm.not sure whether that. request stands -j AREA-WIDE FEDERAL' REPORTING,EINC. (215) 545-7003
- - - - - _ _ _ - - 1
100 1 now based on today's' conversations, but I understood 2 it to be in the November 45, 1986 letter from Richar'd 3 Kessel to Tom Murley, out former Regional 4 Administrator, a request for participation in the 5 HRC's special inspection by the State. That was 6 followed up.by some request, I believe, from the 7 County for :a similar arraignment. 8 I guess what I would like to 9 understand from this correspondence, and we will keep 10 it separato from the proposal, why is it, _if you can 11 tell me, that-the State accompanying the NRC on an 12 inspection cannot represent the interest of the 13 County? 14 MR. BLAU: The county is a separate 15 party in the NRC proceedings. It has separate 16 interests, and it so happens that in many instances 17 the interests of the State and the County have 18 coincided in this particular licensing proceeding, 19 but the Stato is not about to take the position of 20 saying, well, we know what's best for the County, 21 therefore, we can represent the County's interests 22 without the County participating on its own. We are 23 not about to preempt the Counties in this situation. 24 MR. DYNNER: Speaking for the County, AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003 i
101
'I Hr. hane, I was frankly flabbergasted at the.
2 unwillingness of you to welcome the1 County's 4 3 participation. There are about 2 million people that-4 are going to be the most directly influenced by the
.i 5 Shoreham plant, if it goes on line. There is a 6 history of the County's participation which certainly 7 you can't'be ignorant of. 'The county has been at the 8 forefront of the decisions affecting.its own people,-
9 as it should be. It's the County that has the police 10 power to protect 11ts own citizens, and those-people 11 are the most affected. The County has been involved 12 in every aspect of the Shoreham licensing procedures, 13 of the inspection,.of the litigation, and ever'ything 14 else to do with this. plant. 15 And frankly, in the past I have been. 16 involved with Region 1 personnel, as I said befor'e, 17 who have,.rather than attempt to keep the county's , 18 participation at the' lowest level, if not n111,fhave-19 welcomed and worked with the County, recognizingfthat 20 it is the citizens of Suffolk County who have the 21 most to lose by A, if the Shoreham plant opens,.and 22 B, if there are any safety problems with it. 23 So'in answer to your quest' ion, from. 24 the County's point of view, it is a matter'of the AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, Ilic. (215)J545r7003 j l
I 1 102 1 most direct'and' impelling concern, and has been'for a. 2 number of years and will continue to be'until the
-3 resolution of thisl matter, and-I think it ought to be 4 viewed as such. I think that'you and your staff 5 ought not to make distinctions based upon either 6 bypotheticals or fears or pressure or whatever else 7 you were using as the justifications in the past.for 8 opposing the County's-participation. .I ~ am' surprised ,
f 9 that you did that, and'I thought'from your last 10 letter that that issue had been put to rest, at least . 11 I had hoped it had. 12 MR. KANE: I think it's an important 13 point. I heard what you said. I'm not sure that it ,
,, q 14 said anything, other than that you have special j 15 interests which the State may or may.not have, and on 16 this particular issue your interest may be different i 17 than those of the State. ]
16 MR. DYNNER: No, I didn't say that. l 19 Hr. Blau pointed out that that was one element. 20 Parties don't have to have different interests to 21 have a deep and impelling concern as to what is going 22 on for 2 million of their~own citizens,.and I, 23 frankly, am at a loss to understand why you don't:see-24 that. AREA-WIDE'PEDERAL= REPORTING, INC. (215)-545-7003
103-1 This is nc~c an issue. I would hope 2 you wouldn't say that the only way the County of 3 Suffolk can participate in if it. disagrees with New 4 . York State on something because that's not the test. 5 The test here-is that the~ County has.been, and 6 continues to be rightfully and correctly, extremely 7 concerned with protecting its own citizens. New York 8 State has a similar and parallel concern, albeit.not 9 the same concern. 10 MR. KANE: I understand the answer to 11 the question. The State presumeably would offer 12 through its consultant some technical expertise that 13 the NRC might be able to draw upon in the conduct of 14 its inspection. 15 Is there a similar expertise that you 16 could provide that would be other than what the State 17 would provide to aid us in the conduct of the 18 inspection? 19 HR. DYNNER: How you are going to the 20 specifics. Let me divide it up into two things. .A, 21 the principal. If you are talking about the ) i 22 principal of County participation, I think I made my 23 position clear. i 24 MR. KANE: You just discussed that. i AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003 ,
104 1 i ! l- 1 HR. DYNNER: I am talking about the I l 2 particulars now. We are now talking'about what.would- l l 3 happen if, much to my surprise, you reject'the , 1 4 proposal we made today, and what. resources.would the
~5 County bring to bear on the inspection, and would'we?
6 have different consultants than Mr.'Hubbard, assuming 7 Hr. Hubbard would be' involved or others. I l 8 The answer to that question is, I-9 ' don't know. We have in the past worked in a very 10 , cooperative basis with the State. We have in the 11 past jointly retained consultants, and that may well 12 be the way we. choose to proceed, if we-participate in. 13 the new inspection with the NRC. 14 In the past we have also had 15 discussions with your predecessors in which there has. 16 been requests for us to bring to bear.other people, 17 He have had discussions about what kinds of people we la could put on a particular job, and it's been worked, 19 out more in the manner of how can you guys help, and 20 have you got somebody with expertise here, what, kind 21 of consultant'can you lay on, do you have'a budget to 22 handic this, that kind of cooperative joint approach,
- 23. than one which appears to be in the tone in which 24 your inquiry ~is.
AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
t 105 1 HR. KANE: But you are not prepared at-2 this point to make.a specific proposal as far.as what 3 you would provide for'such an inspection?: 4 MR. DYNNER: I don't know.- I' don't 5 know what inspection you have in mind. If you are 6 talking about our proposal,Lunder our proposal there; 7 presumeably would.not necessarily be any consultants. 8 involved, except-in a very. limited fashion. 9 If you are talking about some 10 alternative to our proposal, I suppose my answer is, 11 we don't even know what Mr. Hubbard is going to come 12 up with in terms of the scope and the specifica. So ! 13 it's really difficult for us to say, notsknowing l 14 that, what kind of consultants would we add, if any. ( 15 I just don't know. 16 I can tell you, to repeat, thatithe 17 County and the State have. Worked closely;and 18 cooperated in the past, and'we expect ~to~ continue to 19 do so in the future. 20 HR.-COLLINS: I thought'I heard you 21 say that you also jointly. hired consultants in the 22 past. So one individual which is acceptable to both. 23 of you-could potentially meet both parties' needs. 24 HR.'DYNNERs.That is correct, j AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
i 106 i
\
l 1 MR. K A N E s .-,I s that sufficient to
-i 2 constitute State and County participation, to have a.
3 mutually acceptable member? 4 MR. DYNNERt.Are you. negotiating with
, 5 me, Mr. Kane?
6 MR. KANE: I am just asking you a 7 question. 8 n MR..DYNNER: Look, we are jumping,'I 9 .think', ahead. ' Prom our point of view'the important-10 thing at this' point is the principal which I thought ; 11 had been accepted by our presence at this meeting; 12 that the County does, indeed, have a_ valid compelling. 13 interest and concern.which'ought'to allow it to .'
.. I 14 participate on the same basis as the State'in this>
- 1 15 particular proceeding, involving the licensing ofLthe j 16 Shoreham plant, and the inspections and other things-17 to do with the Shoreham plant. 'That's all we are a la talking about. I would hope that principal has now 19 been accepted and laidito rest.
20 If you're concerned that the State 21 and the County will comeLin, and'we are going 1to then 22 get together and he's going to bring in 6 people and 23 I'm going to bring in 10 people, and we're going to 24 make this thing' unworkable, I can assure you that AREA-WIDE FEDERAL. REPORTING,LINC. (215)-545-7003-m__
;107 y
1 concern ought to be laid to rest right now.- It's not-2 going to happen that'way. What'we do, and.the way-we: I 3 operato, is on the basis of coordination and i 4 cooperation with technical staffs as to.what is going )
.j 5 to work best. l 6 HR. KANE: The concern of County 7 participation has not been laid to rest by your z
( 1 8 invitation to the meeting. There were issues'that' I 9 were raised independently by both the' County and the 10' state with respect to participation which was to be 11 one of the specific items.on the agenda'at this 12 meeting.. You'have proposed a concept _whichJwould j l 13 require neither State, nor County participation lin i 14 the inspection, but rather state and County 15 participation on a steering committee which would 16 agree to alter.the facets of such'an. inspection. 17 HR. DYNNER: I think Mr. Bubbard said' 18
~
that there would'be some monitoring going on and 19 other things too; not. simply selection and. sitting 20 back. There was a hands-on el'ement there which I 21 think you recognized'when you reviewed the papers, g 22 HR. KANE: The specific concept o'f 23 County participation'is in.your~ proposal. . ; 24 HR. DYNNER: Yes, it is. . 1 AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORT.3NG, INC..(215).545-7003
.- _ _ _ _ . _- 1a
108, 1 MR. KANE: From our perspective'the-2 concept of' County-participation in an'NRC inspection 3 is simply not an issue that's been decided;atfthis
.4 meeting.
5 Are there.other questions?
6 (No Iesponse).
7 MR.'KANE: Thank you very.ndch.
~6 HR. DYNNER: Let me add one thing 9 before wet adjourn. Let's talk a little bit about 10 t'iming and logistico, things that corporate lawyers 11 like to talk.about.
12 When can we expect to get'a response 13 to our proposal? Because when that occurs, if the
~
14 response is, affirmative, there's one set of ttiings we c 15 have to do.- If your response.is negative, there is' p a 16 another set of things that'we need to do.
~
17 HR. KANE: I'm not sure I can commit i 18 to a schedule at this meeting. We are going to'have 19 to get together and decide on it, but certainly-I 20 would say we will try to do it within 10 days, at the l 21 outside, 2 weeks. 22 MR. ZEUGIN: If the staff would feel 23 it useful, since we have not seen this proposal ~ i 24 previous to today, and,'in fact', we were not given.a a s AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003 ' ! n
109 l' copy, if you feel that it would be helpful' to have' 2 LILCO write a response to that, LILCO,would be more 3 than willing'to give that on a fairly expedited 4 basis. 5 HR. KANE: They are a part'y to your, 6 proposal. It would seem only fair.
.7 HR. BLAU: It's;upLto you.
8 HR.--KANE: -It's your proposal.- It's 9 up to you. 10 HR. DYNNER: If LILCO wants-to say, 11 no, they don't think it's any. good, we.would be 12 ' interested in hearing them say that, and if they want 13 to say, yes, they.think;it's a_ grand? idea, we.would: 14 even be more interested in hearing them say that. _; 15 HR. KANE: So you wil1~make a copy i 16 available to them? 17 HR. DYNNER: Sure. 10 HR.-KANE 'Or we,can make a. copy , 19 available to them at this meeting, and they-will have 20 an opportunity to comment. > i 21 HR. DYNNER: I'd be happy-to. 1 22 HR. KANE: Thank you very much. That 23 concludes the meeting. 24 (The meeting concluded at 4:45 p.m.)~. AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003 a
.y. _
m _
..._- 110 ? j 1 C lE R :T I Fj 'I C;A T E 2 ---
3 -COMMONWEALTH OF. PENNSYLVANIA: 4 : SS 5 COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA , . 6 d 7 I, Norma.Carr, Court' Reporter, 8 Notary Public within andfor Philadelphia County, 9 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, do her'eby certify.that 10 the foregoing NRC staff meeting was taken before.me l 11 .at 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia,' Pennsylvania,on: 12 Friday,. Hay 29, 1987; that the foregoing ^ meeting.was=, ; 13 taken by me in shorthand and, reduced.to' typing under - 14 my direction and control, that the foregoing.pages 1 15 to'109 contain a'trueiand correct transcription /of 16 all of the meeting. , 17 j la is .... h 4.4 ..... l . NORMA CARR l '20 , Notary Public 21 My Commission expires. 22 February 18,'1589;- o 23 24 t f AREA-WIDE FEDERAL REPORTING, INC. (215) 545-7003
. - _ _ _ - _. . _ _ _ . - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ ._ _ ._ . . .. _ _ _ . _ - _}}