ML20217H053
| ML20217H053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, 05000345  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1997 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9708080193 | |
| Download: ML20217H053 (216) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:y. -pi ORIGINAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
Title:
MEETING WITH NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ON MILLSTONE - PUBLIC MEETING . Location: Rockvi!!e, Maryland Date: Wednesday, August 6,1997 0 ) Pages: 1 - 147 i e l b, f ,b,!!!l!,! Qvbdb ANN RILEY & N.W., 1250 I St., ASSOCIATES, Suite 300 - . LTD.g it) o O' 'p]k d(-, \L (202) 8 ." V ; 97j8080 970006
- fik PT9.7 PDR ..
. DISCLAIMER
.?. i This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of d the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on August 6, 1997-in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting,was open to public attendance-and observation. This transcript has not been
-reviewed, corrected or edited, _and it may contain inaccuracies..
.The transcript is intended solely for general informational-purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part-of-the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. . Expressions of opinion in this
[J transcript do not necessarily' reflect final determination or beliefs.: 'No--pleading'or-other paper may be filed with.the-
. Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except'as .
r the Commission may authorize. w
~
- _ - _ - _ _ _ l
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 *** 4 MEETING WITH NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ON MILLSTONE 5 ***
- PUBLIC MEETING 6
7 *** o 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 Commission Hearing Room 10 11555 Rockville Pike 11 Rockville, Maryland 12 4 13 Wednesday, August 6, 1997 14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 9:33 a.m., the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, 17 Chairman of the Commission, presiding. 18 19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: g 20 SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission 21 GRETA J. DICUS, Member of the Commission 22 EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the Commission 23 NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. . . .. -. . ._--_ - _-- - - .~
i 2 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE: 2 STEPHEN G. BURNS, Associate General Counsel 3 JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary 4 BRUCE KENYON, President and CEO, Northeast Nuclear 5 Energy Company
- 6 BUZZ CARNS, Senior Vice-President and Chief i
7 Nuclear Officer e 8 JACK McELWAIN, Recovery Officer, Millstone Unit 1 9 MARTIN BOWLING, Recovery Officer, Millstone Unit 2 10 MIKE BROTHFRS, Vice-President and Recovery 11 Officer, Millstone Unit 3 1 12 DAVE GOEBEL, Vice-President, Nuclear Oversight i 13 JAY THAYER, Recovery Officer, Nuclear Engineering 14 and Support 15 BRIAN ERLER, Senior Vice-President, ICAVP Project 16 Director, Sargent & Lundy 17 DAN CURRY, Vice-President, Nuclear Services, 18 Parsons Power 19 DON SCHOPFER, Vice-President and Verification 20 Manager, Sargent & Lundy 21 ERIC BLOCFER, Der .y Project Director, Parsons 22 Power 23 JOHN GRIFFIN, Deputy Team Leader, Little Harbor 24 Consultants 25 JOHN BECK, President, Little Harbor Consultants ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
7 3 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE: 2 (continued) 3 BILLIE GARDE, Consultant, Little Harbor 4 Consultants 5 JOSEPH CALLAN, EDO 6 WILLIAM TRAVERS, Director, Special Projects 7 Office, NRR 4 8 PHILLIP McKEE, Deputy Director for Licensing and 9 Oversight, SPO, ImR 10 EUGENE IMBRO, Deputy Director for ICAVP, SPO, NRR 11 WAYNE LANNING, Deputy Director for Inspections, 12 SPO, NRR 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
4 1 P R10 C E E D i N G S
- 2. [9:33 a.m.)
3 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: 'Well, good morning ladies and j 4 gentlemen. The purpose of this meeting is for the-5 Commission to be briefed on the status of activities related
*- 6 to the three Millstone nuclear powerplants, nuclear
? reactors. The Commission will hear presentations today from 8 Northeast Utilities, Northeast Nuclear in particular, 9 contractors associated with both the Independent Corrective
-10 Action Verification Program, the ICAVP, an employees 11_ concerns program, and the NRC staff.
1 12 Millstone Unit I has been shut down for 21 months, 13 and Units II and III-have been shut down for approximately 14 16 months. All three of the Millstone units:were placed on~ ; 15 the.NRC's watch list in January 1996. The units were 16 recharacterized as category 3 plants in June'_1996. This 17- action necessitates Commission approval for restart of-each 18 of-the units. 19 The NRC in November of last year created a new 20 organization, the Special Projects Office, wi.th the
~~
21 responsibility for all NRC licensing and inspection 22- activities at Millstone necessary-to support our decision on" 23- the restart:of the Millstone units.
.24 This Commission meeting is the third quarterly 25 meeting to assess the status of activities at the sites.
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street,'N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
5 1 The Commission is interested in the licensees' achievements 2 realized from its recovery process, how the licensee is 3 ensuring that the root cause deficiencies are being 4 corrected, and how the licensee is measuring and tracking 5 its progress. In addition, the Commission is very 6 interested in the updates from the contractc s tasked with 7 providing an independent assessment of the corrective action 8 programs at the stations, as well as the third party 9 associated with the independent oversight of employee 10 concerns. Finally, we are very interested in hearing the 11 NRC staff's views regarding not only the effectiveness of 12 the licensee's progress to date, but an assessment of how 13 well the program, meaning the mix of independent contractors 14 and interactions between them, the licensee, the Special 15 Projects Office, and the rest of the NRC staff is working. 16 If changes are desired in this process to more 17 effectively or efficiently monitor performance so that the , 18 Commission has a clear picture when it comes time to take a 19 decision, the Commission desires that feedback today from 20 any and all of the participants. 21 I understand that copies of the various 22 presentations are available at the entrances to the meeting,
-23 and that we will hear first from Northeast Nuclear Energy 24 Company, and so unless my colleagues have any opening 25 comments they wish to make, Mr. Kenyon, please proceed.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
6 1 MR. KENYON: Okay. Thank you, Chairman Jackson. 2 Good morning. I'm Bruce Kenyon, president and CEO of ; 3 Northeast Nuclear, and we're pleased to have this 4 ' opportunity to update you on the progress that we're making I 5 in recovering the Millstone units. 6 The agenda for our portion of the meeting is as
- 7 listed on this slide. We sent you a detailed briefing book 8 in advance of the meeting. In that briefing book there are 9 a number of issues, approximately 15, that we think are very 10 significant from the perspective of restoring performance at 11 Millstone. For each issue, we gave you how we define the 12 issue, the success criteria that we are using to judge 13 whether or not we are where we need to be in order to close 14 the issue from our perspective.
15 We indicated the recovery approach. We indicated 16 the major accomplishments that we have achieved thus far, 17 what we believe are the remaining important actions, and a 18 conclusionary statement as to where we-think we are on the 19 issue at this point in time. We also included numerous 20 perform ~ance indicators either as part of the issue writeup 21 or as part of the specific KPI sections. 22 So I hope the briefing book met your needs. , 23 Because the briefing book provides you with a lot of 24 detailed information, we have limited our presentation to a 25 fairly high-level review of the indicated topics, and our ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
7 1 -hope is this will afford you-ample opportunity to ask l
-2 questions about these and other matters. '
3 To summarize and:-give you my overall assessment,
-4 I'm generally pleased with the progress that we're making 5 toward restart, and I think there are many very positive 6 accomplishments to highlight, but rather than dwell on the 7 positive, I think it's important for the purposes of this 8 meeting to focus on certain areas where current progress, at 9 least at this point, does not meet my expectations. I 10 I want you to know those areas that I continue to 11 be concerned about. These are-summarized'on some slides 12 which I'll use as part'of my concluding remarks, but I 13 wanted at the start of the meeting _to indicate.those areas 14 of concern. -Thus, areas which are not meeting my current 15 expectations are portions'of the following, and we're 16 clearly working on all of these issues.
17 The first is oversight. Now we had a recent 18 independent assessment'that told us that line management and 19 oversight did not have a raasonably common expectation
- 20. regarding roles and responsibilities. So chat's one area of
- 21. concern.
22 Whereas I had previously_had some concern 23' regarding the overall quality and usefulness-of certain 24 oversight products, in the last month the' quality of these-25 products, the usefulness of these products, has jumped to a ANN'RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters l 1250 I. Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
8 1 very acceptable standard, but we only have about c month's 2 worth of data here, so that's still open in my mind. 3 Next is the corrective action program. I think 4 we've been doing a good job in identifying issues. What I 5 am not yet satisfied with is that we have not established a 6 sufficient track record of fixing problems, and ensuring
- 7 that the corrective actions taken are effective in 8 preventing future problems. So that's an area that we work 9 on.
10 Next is a safety-conscious work environment. I 11 think we have done a good job of improving the general 12 environment, and I believe you'll hear that from Little 13 Harbor. But while averages are good, there clearly are 14 pockets that we need to work on. And while the Employee 15 Concerns Program is functioning, it's not functioning in a 16 sufficiently rigorous way, and it needs to be more effective 17 than it currently is. But it's coming along. 18 I also want to mention that we took some very 19 significant and visible disciplinary action with regard to 20 individuals in or associated with training. This was in 21 keeping with our success objective of high standards and
- 22 clear accountabilities. We anticipated it would cause 23 concerns among the work force, and it has. We take these 24 concerns seriously. We do not want these concerns to be a 25 setback to the substantially improved environment that we've ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 j (202) 842-0034
9 1 established, and last week in a meeting with NRR we reviewed 2 the actions we are taking to address employee concerns 3 arising from this necessary disciplinary action. 4 It was announced yesterday afternoon, and thus 5 it's in the papers this morning, that part of what we are . 6 doing here is an independent review, mostly to satisfy our 7 own employees. The individual who is heading that up is 8 former Commissioner and Vice Admiral Carr -- 9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And former Chairman, 10 MR. KENYON: -- and former Chairman, yes. And 11 obviously an individual with very high credibility and 12 knowledge of regulations and the importance of training and 13 the importance of proper submittals. He is starting his 14 review as of this morning. 15 The next area is work controls. We have not yet 16 established a uniform work control process for the site; we 17 are working on that. And our work accomplishment success 18 rate is not where it needs to be. Now a key event for us is 19 shifting to an outage mode, where you are really 20 accomplishing a lot of work on a very scheduled basis, and 21 that will occur on unit 3 starting next week. 22 Our training. I'm not satisfied with where we are 23 in training. There are a number of problems. I have 24 mentioned the disciplinary actions, and I think we have a 25 lot of work to do to get training back on track. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court. Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
- D 1 And, finally, the other area of concern to me is 2 operational readiness. We have had several recent operating 3 events of varying significance, but collectively they 4 clearly indicate that the conduct of operations at Millstone 5 is not where it needs to be. We have been giving a lot of 6 attention to the 50.54(f) effort, other engineering issues, ,
7 various sitewide issues, and not as much attention to 8 operational readiness. 9 Now over the next several months, we will be 10 giving a lot more attention to this area than we have been 11 previously. 12 So those are approximately the five areas that I 13 am not satisfied with our progress. Other areas, I think we 14 are doing quite well. 15 The nantes and titles of the Millstone of ficers 16 participating in the presentation, all of whom you have met 17 before, are listed on this slide. I do want to acknowledge 18- the presence of George Davis, who chairs the nuclear 19 committee advisory team, NCAT, which advises the nuclear 20 committee of the board,'and there are a number of other 21 members of NCAT in the audience. - 22 And as.a final point, we recognize the importance 23 of continuing and having extensive dialogue with the public 24 regarding the status of our recovery efforts. This. slide 25 shows our principal public outreach activities. We believe ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 ; (202) 842-0034
11
~
1 _they are11eading to an improved public understanding of our 2- recovery effort, and at this point, unless there are any 3- questions for me, I'd like to call on Buzz Carns to address 4 the-issue of leadership. 5 MR. CARNS: Good morning. It is no secret that
' 6 leadership was really~the root cause of our problems, and 7- that it will also be the. force that restores credibility to 8 Millstone operations.
9 There are three basic core values ~that our leaders 10 are instilling in the organization, and these-are do the 11 right thing; respect individual dignity; and establish team 11 2 - work at all levels of the organization. 13 -The opinions of our employees and our contractors 14 are an effective measure of our progress in restoring P 15 leadership credibility. In this regard, there are two 16 principal measurements: ' 17 One is that the leadership team achieve a minimum 18 of a 15 percent improvement: in our leadership assessment-- 19 scores. 4 20 The other is that the organization achieve a 21- -target _ score of 13 as measured--in the Milletone cultural 22 survey. 23 I think we have some encouraging results'that we'd
~
24 like to share with-you today. On the leadership slide,-you- _ 25= can see that we have had progress in every area. In fact,
-ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court _ Reporters-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C; 20005 (202) 842-0034-
12 I we have had an aggregate increase of approximately 21 2 percent over the score from last year's assessment. This i 3 measurement tool was brought to Northeast Utilities by Bruce 4 Kenyon from South Carolina Electric & Gac, and it has indeed 5 been developed and it has its roots in a survey done by 6 Federal Expresa Corporation. 7 MR. KENYON: If I can just comment at this point, 8 you know, we use this survey at SCE&G across the company, 9 and obviously in nuclear. The scores that you see on the 10 screen are good scores. I would have been happy with those Il at SCE&G. 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you a question. You 13 know, you mentioned in your opening remarks the problems 14 that you have had with training. Do you think that this 15 area, you know, the vulnerability there, could have been 15 identified through a careful study of leadership assessment 17 results? 18 MR. KENYON: Well, first, the training issues at 19 Millstone are longstanding issues. Training has been a 20 problem for years, and there have been various attempts 21 along the way to strengthen training. We did, shortly after 22 I got here, shortly after the new leadership team was here, , 23 we made a change at the senior level in the training 24 organization. We changed others in the training, so we have 25 significant new leadership in training, and I believe the l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ! Court Reporters l 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005
- (202) 842-0034
13 1 leadership we have now is leadership that can recover the 2 program. 3 So had the-leadership assessment been used back in 4 time before we got here,-I think that it is likely that it 5 would have shown leadership problems in the training area,
- 6 but you know, that's somewhat speculative, but that's what I 7 believe.
8- CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And so your view today is that 9 the training problems that you have seen bark back to the 10 longstanding problems, and do not show vulnerabilities with 11 respect to leadership in that area today? 12 MR, KENYON: That's correct. I think the current 13 leadership we have -- and we are supplementing that 14 leadership with some others from outside who are on loan or 15 borrowed, but I believe the current training leadership can 16 get the job done, although we are giving them additione_ 17 help. 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And are any of these areas that 19 you show on the graph, are you tracking any more of them 20 more closely than any of the others? Or do they all have 21 equal weight? 22 MR. KENYON: I think they have equal importance. 23 Certainly if I had seen an area that -- you know, all these 24 scores are between 5 and 6; those are all good scores. And 25 if I had seen one in the 4 range still, then we would be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
l ~ 14 1 spending a lot more time. So what we are doing now is doing 2 a lot of leadership training, and we are also continuing our 3 process to weed out those who really don't have what it 4 takes to be a good leader. So I expect we are going to do 5 another survey -- I may be getting into Martin's area -- but 6 we ale going to do another survey in the October-November
- 7 time frame, because I want to have one more set of data to 8 support the December meeting.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Let me just ask you cne 10 last question along this line, and I will yield to 11 Commissioner Dicus. 12 You have outlined some key areas where you are not 13 satisfied with everything, and results to date, scme 14 concerns. A question becomes if you are going to do a 15 follow-on leadership assessment, will you in fact uss these 16 areas and performance in these areas as metrics vis-a-vls 17 leadership assessment? 18 MR. KENYON: No, and let me explain. What the 19 leadership assessment does is ask subordinate employees 20 questions, and the employees can answer the question, and if 21 the question is stated in a positive way, does your 22 supervicor do the following, good communication, provide 23 vision, and so forth, safety-conscious work environment -- 24 there's a set of questions there. Does your supervisor do 25 this well? And the employee can answer from strongly agree ANN R1 LEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
15 1 to strongly disagree. 2 The questions are not on specific leadership 3 tasks, they are on the broad aspects of leadership. Now 4 obviously if the employees think that a supervisor is not 5 doing his job well, it's going to show up in these 6 questions, but to do what you're indicating would require 7 customizing the leadership assessment survey to various 8 areas of the organization that have differing 9 responsibilities. Then I lose the ability to make 10 comparisons across the site and that's important to me. 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No, and I understand your point 12 now, but I would just like to leave you with the thought 13 that in the end, the areas that you are talking about, the 14 ones where you yourself have admitted that you have concerns 15 are the ultimate metric of how well ye'tr leaders perform. 16 MR. KENYON: Yes. 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And to the extent that that is 18 either affected by or tracks into the worker-leader 19- relationship, it would strike me that you would need to get 20 some ihput for yourself in those regards because leaders can 21 have nice qualities but if they don't get done what they 22 need to get done -- 23 MR. KENYON: Don't get the job done. Yes, ma'am. 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- to your satisfaction, and 25 there's still something hanging in the balance. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i _
16 1 MR. KENYON: I understand your point and I think 2 it's good and we will give that some thought. Thank you. 3 Commissioner Dicus. 4 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Some of what I was interested 5 in has already been addressed in your comments in the 6 exchange that was useful, but this does represent all of . 7 your plants? 8 MR. KENYON: The data that you have is Millstone 9 only data. 10 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Well, right, but all of the 11 units are -- 12 MR. KENYON: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay. Was there an outlier? 14 I mean was there one unit that perhaps would cause this to 15 change quite a bit if it was -- 16 MR. CARNS: Well, what we have done, I gave you an , 17 aggregate of a 21 percent increase. We are in the process 18 now of breaking that down by individuals and by different 19 departments. Tha have got a lot more analyzing to do. 20 I think what that tells us is that the core values 21 that we really believe in, that's a good measurement for the - 22 core values. The other part of it I think goes back to Cte-23 Chairman's remarks that I think we also need to get 24 ownership, and if you have the core values and you have 25 ownership of'everybody's responsibility, then I think you ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
17 j 1 will have success, steadily improving. 2 So this basically requires some more analysis. 3 MR. KENYON: But just to add to what Bu : has 4 said, I fully expect to see significant variation among 5 individuals and I expect to see variation among the 6 differing organizations, maybe not so much at a unit level, 7 although there may be modest differences, but an 8 organization over here that is part of a unit verris an 9 organization that is over here chat's part of a unit. 10 We are going to see, we should see beyond the 11 averages, which are good, we should see pockets of problems 12 and we intend to use this data. We intend to use what comes 13 out of our employee concerns program, we intend to use data 14 that Little Harbor can share with us, we intend to use the 15 cultural survey that Bu : is about to talk about as ways to 16 focus in on where are --- 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. 18 MR. KENYON: -- even if the averages are good, now 19 where are the pockets in the organization where there's not 20 good -- ' 21 COMMISSIONER DICUS: That's a good point. 22 MR. KENYON: That's our focus for the next couple 23 months is dealing very aggressively with those pockets. 24- CHAIRMAN JACKSON: See, you anticipate me. 25 I have a thing, a question here that says ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
t 18 1 "Although all categories showed improvement, that does not 2 mean that you don't.have pockets where performance may need 3 more review." 4 But why don't you go on? 5 MR. CARNS: And frankly if we were looking at it 6 from today's standpoint, just recently Jack and I have to 7 spend more time on Unit 1 because they feel somewhat 8 neglected, with all the emphasis on Unit 3 and Unit 2. The s 9 people feel like we are not paying enough attention, so we - 10 have a challenge out there in front of us. 11 We do intend to take the people who score toward 12 the bottom of the management assessment and have individual 13 plans for them, to bring them along to make sure that they 14 can be successful in this environment. 15 A second indicator that demonstrates an improving 16 trend is the results we have achieved from a cultural 17 survey. Now this cultural survey is one that Dr. Chiu has 18 used basically on a national basis and when you look at the 19 survey we thought that if we could get the. score of 13 on 20 that we would be successful. 21 We are very, very close to that. I think 12.88 is 22 where we are today, but this survey has been used by 44 , 23 plans and we are right in the middle of the pack with 15 24' other riants, but we have had an improving trend of about 11 25 percent since the last survey and we are heading up towards ANN R1 LEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 j Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 1 19 1 that group of eight plants which are in the category where
.2 there is reasonable expectation that they will have 3 continued improvement and they really understand excellence 4 in operations, so we are moving in that direction.
5 We are with the 15 right now, in the middle of the 6 pack, and our goal is to get up there with the elite eight. 7 They were basically used as benchmarks for the industry. 8 As with the leadership assessment, this survey is 9 providing us with information from which we can adjust our 10 performance to resolve and identify weaknesses. The next 11 survey for the cultural issues will be conducted in 12 November. 13 The next slide is a listing of our milestones, and 14 as you look at this slide you can see that on 5-27 and 6-30 15 we respectively met the commencement dates for the ICAVP for 16 Unit 3 and Unit 2. We met the completion of discovery on 17 July 14th for Unit 3, and I would also like to point out on 18 this slide that there are some changes from the last 19 briefing that we had here. 20 We have cleane'd up the terminology somewhat. We 21 put down when we expect to be ready for Mode 4 in Unit 3, 22 which will be just around Thanksgiving timeframe, and then 23 we put down when we would be ready if we meet all our 24 milestones for the Commission to consider voting on our 25 restart. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
20 1 There are some specific dates in there that Mike 2 Brothers will talk more about for Unit 3 and he will talk
-3 about some of the challenges that exist.
4 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I'm sorry, but what do you
.5 mean by completion of CMP discovery?
l 6 MR. CARNS: that is the point where the discovery -
)
i' 7 has been complete for the have i systems and Wave 2, Mike, E all the Wave 2? 9 MR. BROTHERS: Yes, it's complete for maintenance 10 rule Group 1 and Group 2, which is risk and/or significant 11 systems completed on July 16th discovery. 12 MR. CARNS: It doesn't mean that we won't find 13 other things as we prepare for starting up -- 14 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: That is what I was concerned 15 about. 16 MR. CARNS: It's the specific effort that was 17 dedicated to the 5054(F). the other thing that you will see 18 on that slide is that we have dates up there on Unit i now 19 that makes Jack's folks a lot happier over there when they 20 see that there is a schedule. 21 With that, I would like to -- 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Before you turn -- I would like 23 to ask you a couple of. quick questions. '24 You have aggressive schedules, and we talked about 25 schedules-once before, but, you know, in looking at the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, L1J. Court-Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 ( 2 C'2 ) 842-0034
21 1 performance indicators -- and thank you for p;oviding 2 them -- I was looking at some of the ones for Millstone-Unit 3 3 in particular -- on pages A-2, A-6, and A-7, in particular 4 looking at task completions, and this tracks into some of 5 the things you talked about earlier, Mr. Kenyon, task
- 6 cumpletions required i'or restart -- that was on A-2. Open 7 NRC commitments -- that's A-6; and significant items list, 8 particularly -- that's A-7. If you look at the type of work 9 off that you would need, it seems that you're going to need 10 to have a very steep work off in several categories - -these 11 are three that are particularly highlighted -- and perhaps 12 the majority.
13 Can you speak to that a little bit and have you 14 shared, you know, your most realistic Lnd 'aost worst case 15 dates with the Special Projects Office here? But I would 16 - actually like you to talk about the realism of being able to 17- work off the steepness of these. 18 MR. BROTHERS: Right. In my presentation, I'm 19 going to be talking about each of those. In fact -- 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You will. 21 MR. BROTHERS: -- four challenges that are to our 22 September 30th day I'll be talking about specifically. 23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. But I guess, then, the 24 broader question -- I'll ask you, Mr. Carns -- do you feel 25 that you're appropriately balancing scheduler concerns with y ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 22 1 comprehensive resolution of issues? Because, you know, the 2 worst case scenario would be that you meet your schedule but 3 the issues are not resolved. 4 MR. CARNS: Exactly. And we are very concerned 5 about people focusing on a schedule, and frankly, the 6 schedule is just a measurement of how professionally we're 7 doing the rest of things, like planning and work control and 8 corrective action. If you go back to the -- July 14th was 9 the schedule date for completing discovery for Unit 3, we
, 10 did not meet that, we met it on July 16th, because there' 11 were some issues, and we had to meet a certain standard 12 before we would say we'd meet it. So the standards are 1
13 really the focus, 14 We have not shared a worst-case scenario with the 15 project office, and frankly we haven't developed a worst-16 case scenario. We have a very aggressive schedule and we're 37 looking at that on a weekly basis and we'll make adjustments 18 as necessary. I think Mike Brothers will also give you a 19 commitment of what our communication will be as we go 20 forward and get into this outage mode to see whether or not 21 we're making our work off curves. But that is a significant 22 challenge. 23 MR. KENYON: The only other general comment, to 24 answer your question, is if you looked at the indicators 25 that led up to achieving the previous milestones, you would ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034
23 l 1 have had the same concerns. Things don't get completed in a 2 linear fashion. There's a lot of-work in process. It all 3 .tends to come to conclusion, and we're all nervous about the 4 indicators, and then they all, you know, they all came in. 5 Now, that's not to say that we don't have 6 challenges in meeting these other indicators, but, you know, 7 I understand the question perfectly. We look at it 8 ourselves, our board looks at it, can you really do this? 9 And we are saying standards first and schedule second. But 10 a lot of work comes together right toward the end and the 11 amount of work outstanding takes this kind of nosedive as 12 opposed to a linear work off. 13 But we share the observation that che schedule we I 14 have is a challenging schedule, but the schedule we have had 15 has been a challenging schedule, and we've met -- even 16 though it was July 16th versus July 14th, I count that as 17 close enough to say that we've met -- we're three for three 18 on the last major milestones. 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And you talked about the
-20 culture survey, safety conscious work environment, employee 21 concerns. Can you measure in any way this stress on your 22 managers and employees of balancing the scheduler issues 23 with comprehensive resolution of the issues?
24 MR. CARNS: I think the answer is indirectly, we i 25 get phone calls through the hotline or through the employee ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 __o
e 24
.1. concerns program if people think that we're being 2 unrealistic, and I expect we'll probably have more of those 3- -conversations as we go down the road because at this point, 4 we've-been kind of doing things in a bulk method, and as you 5 start focusing on incrementally finishing systems and 6 finishing work, the schedule starts tying together in more 7 different places, and I think there will be more concerns 8 expressed. So I think we just need to deal with them.
9 I don't have a good way to measure that right now 10 other than just being out there with the people and being 11 available to them so that they_can express their concerns. 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan I think 13 had a question. 14 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Just a very brief one, and it may.be one of these cases where it's close enough.
~
15 16 -But the staff is going to later tell us that they're 17 planning for Unit 2 a Commission briefing on March 13th. 18 You have in this chart that we just had-up February of '98. I 19: That's maybe within two weeks of each other, depending on 20 --which date in February you had'in mind. -Is there any 21 disconnect there or are you all -- 22 MR. CARNS: I think one of the. things we need to , 23- do, and maybe Marty will speak too, but I think if we.do 24 everything in the left-hand column, we would come forward 25 and say we're ready in the middle column.
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
, Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
)
I 25 1 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:--Well, you're ready for 2 your-operational safety on the -- 3= _MR, CARNSt. On the first of December, != 4 CottMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: On the first of 5 December.
- 6 MR, CARNS: Right.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: What I noticed for Unit 8 3 is-that we're going to come in about two weeks after 9 you'16 ready to start that inspection, and then we have a 10 restart panel that comes in after that. If the team-isn't 11 going to be there at Christmas, then they start in January, 12 and maybe that's the two weeks, I don't know what -- 13 MR. CARNS: That was kind of an indirect reference 14 to my point, Well, let me have Marty take me out of it. 15 MR. BOWLING: It simply reflects our expectation 16 on when we will be ready, and it's not intended to schedule 17 the NRC but to signal to the project team when we thina -l 18 we'll be ready so that they may then schedule, 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, Why. don't you go on, R20 MR._CARNS: Well, at this point, I would like to ! 21 introduce Dave Goebel, who is in charge of the-oversight 22 organization,-and he is not pressured by schedule, but he-23- has an awful lot of. work to do at the end of these milestone 24 readiness processes.- 25 Dave? ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
26 1 MR. GOEBEL: Good morning. 2 Nuclear Oversight is improving its capability to 3 focus on areas which are key for the successful restart of 4 the Millstone units. In past meetings, we have been asked 5 to provide examples of the types of findings' Oversight is I l 6 making, and the first slide is intended to help answer that
- i 7 question. l 8 We are concentrating very heavily in the area of 9 configuration management. From the very start of the 10 Millstone effort in this area, there has been a team of 11 dedicated oversight personnel monitoring the process and 12 procedure development undertaken and providing critical 13 comments in support of a standard of technical thoroughness.
14 As the procedures were implemented, we monitored 15 the end product by conducting a series of vertical slices to 16 verify rigor of application. It was our conclusion that to 17 date, the units have been well prepared and there have been 18 no significant findings. 19 A June 1997 audit conducted in the nuclear 20 training area uncovered significant deficiencies in the 21 application of systems approach to training which then led 22 to the training department electing to shut down all 23 training. Corrective actions are ongoing and Oversight is 24 assessing the results from those corrective actions. A May 25 1997 audit in the equipment qualification area found that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
27 1 the program was not developed, documentSd or implemented on 2 eny unit to '.he proper standard. Very few resources were being applied-at the time of the audit. This has improved 4 specifically with regards-to Unit 3, whose program now looks 5 much more solid. 6 Codings have received a lot of attention, 7 specifically at commercial grade product applied to minimize 8 corrosion and'- erosion inside servicewater piping. 9 Incorrect application can permit pieces of material to flake 10 off and potentially clog the heat exchangeru. This has been 11 a difficult area for oversight since we do not have any one 12 - qualified to conduct the actual acceptance tests and must 13 rely on a vendor. Oversight is evaluating actions intended 14 to resolve the problems in this area as they occur. 1D Corrective action program effectiveness le key to 16 Millstone's recovery. Oversight reviews corrective action 17 - program effectiveness as a normal _part of performing audits 18 and other reviews that we do. Additionally, the safety unit 19 actions report complete for evaluating for the effectiveness 20 of their closure. 21 To date, the results have not been good. Closure ' 22 rates are slow and some actions taken as a result of prior:
-23 -audits and/or surveillances have yet to be completed or_were 24 ineffective. This area requires a significant effort to 25 meet the required guidelines. An audit to assess ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300
.- Washington, D.C. 20005
-(202)-842-0034-
l 28 1 effectiveness of program implementation is scheduled for 2 mid-August for both Units 2 and 3. 3 So, in summary, I think oversight is focusing on 4 the key areas required for restart and we are beginning to 5 make a greater contribution. 6 The line and support organizations have 7 established work observation and self-assessment programs to 8 identify and correct problems. Self-assessment programs are 9 now fully established. The rigor and quality of their 10 efforts is improving. Training and mentoring are being used 11 to help people improve their work observation and self-12 assessment skills and therefore their ability to identify 13 issues. 14 Units 2 and 3 have systems in place to review 15 their self-assessments for effectiveness. Oversight has 16 provided an independent assessment of their results. Within 17 oversight, we have adopted a numerical grading system to 18 assist in the evaluation of the self-assessments and provide 19 this data monthly by means of inclusion in our monthly 20 report. 21 Work observations are now occurring on all units. 22 Unit 1 has made particularly strong use of this program by , 23 conducting over 3,000 so far in 1997. Unit efforts in these 24 areas have resulted in quality becoming an increasingly 25 important way of life at Millstone. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
29 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: How have you measured the 2 quality of the self-assessment? 3 MR. GOEBEL: We take each of the self-assessmente 4 that we look at and we don't look at every one of them but 5 we look at a large percentage of what they do and we go C through a grading system by looking at whether or not they 7 covered all the salient points, the denth tr which they 8 covered those points and the types of things that they are 9 finding relative to the material that we have from other 10 sources and that goes through a grading matrix. We just 11 fill out a sheet and keep it tabulated and we, on a monthly 12 basis, come up with a score and evaluate how they are doing 13 and feed that back. 14 So each unit gets -- will get a grade from us. 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON. How many self-assessments have, 16_ in fact, been performed so_far and will each organization 17 have performed a self-assessment before startup? 18 MR. BOWLING: In my part of the presentation, I am 19 going to cover self-assessment, but -- 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON 4 We can wait, then. 21 MR. BOWLING: Over 150 threughout the organization 22 and I will go into a little more detail. 23 CHAIRMAN .TACKSON: Thanks. 24 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: If I may say so, sometimes 25 when you actually have numbers on the things, even if they ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
30 1 are relative, just a relative increase will tell us why you 2 say they are improving or changing, whatever it is. It is a 3 delta. Delta is possible for whatever metrics you are 4 using. It might not be a bad idea if you just cay, we 5 approximately, you know -- 6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Are you going to be giving some 7 numbers in your presentation? 8 MR. BOWLING: On the quality as the line rates are 9 corrective action, I will give some numbers. 10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, from the oversight 11 perspective -- 12 MR. GOEBEL: Yes, and I can give you the latest 13 data. The latest data on a scale of 20, where 20 is 14 excellent, the Unit 3 self-assessments are at about 15, the 15 Unit 2 self-assessmente are at about 12. Oversight self-16 assessments are at about 11. I mean, so there is -- 17 CHAIMCW JACKSON: I think it would be helpful the 18 next time around to actually have more specific numbers and 19 to say what your quality factors are, because that tells you 20 how you arrive at a judgment. 21 MR. GOEBEL: Okay. 22 CHAIRCui JACKSON: Why don't you go on. 23 MR. GOEBEL: We recently commissioned an 24 independent review of the effectiveness of the oversight 25 organization. The review was led by Jack Martin, former ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 1 Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
T 31 1 Regions Three and Five administrator. The team found that 2 the oversight organization had made progress in the previous 3 months but also found that improvements were required in 4 several areas. They also found that receptivity of the rest 5 of the sight to oversight comments negatively impacted
- 6 oversight's effectiveness. Some of the efforts for 7 improvement are included on the next slide.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What goals have you actually 9 established? 10 MR. GOEBEL: Goals for oversight? 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Correct. What short term and 12 metrics for demonstrating progress? 13 MR. GOEBEL: Well, we have -- I've got a series of 14 goals. Goals for improvement in the end product that we 15 produce, either audit surveillance, audit team reports, 16 whatever, so that again, based on the value of the actual 17 report itself to the end user, the quality of the data, what 18 you find, how it is communicated. What we have 19 discovered -- 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, again, I am going to add 21 this. You have a group of analytical people here so, you k 22 now, you need to lay out, you know, generalized statements 23 are not helpful. You need to lay out what specific goals 24 you have, what your. metrics are for showing progress against 25 them in a very succinct form and therefore what your MD1 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
32 1 progress is against them. 2 MR. CARNS: One of the goals from a line 3 management standpoint is to have more involvement on the 4 front end of audits and on the back end so that we have 5 agreement that what the product is, is something that is 6 going to be very useful. 7 CilAIRMAN JAC); SON: Right, okay. 8 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: No, I have no questions. 9 MR. GOEBEL: Some of the efforts for improvement 10 are included on the next slide. The team did not see 11 oversight playing a role in affecting the standards change 12 at Millstone, something that they considered crucial. Some 13 of this they attributed to attentiveness on the part of 14 oversight and some to the lack of a clearly accepted role 15 for oversight in this area. They pointed out that oversight 16 is too compliance-driven. Although compliance is essential, 17 it is not enough. The team pointed out oversight was 18 insufficiently concentrated on performance and results 19 within the envelope of compliance. 20 The team felt that teamwork was inadequate within 21 oversight, which resulted in not getting the maximum benefit 22 from the full integration of our various products. They , 23 cited communications between oversight and the lines 24 requiring improvement and urge us to continue to make 25 improvements in our products. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
33 1 All of these deficiencies are acing worked. In 2 particular oversight has shifted to focus areas in an effort 3 to better concentrate our resources. Our teamwork has 4 improved and we have established more formal methods of S followup. We're modifying our exit methodologies to provide 6 better dialogue and feedback from audits and Independent 7 Review Team reports. 8 The Nuclear Safety Assessment Board had been 9 previously cited as weak and not making a meaningful 10 contribution to the safe operation of the Millstone site. 11 This organization has undergone significant change, and the 12 expectations for the membership are clearer. The Board now 13 consists of nuclear officers and four outside consultants. 14 Discussions are frank, and action items are being assigned 15 and carried out. 16 The Board has made particularly strong 17 interventions in the areas listed on this slide. The 18 subcommittees wi.ich report to the Board are reviewing key 19 aspects of the site's readiness for restart. The Board 20 itself has taken a major role in promoting the nuclear 21 safety policy and developing a reactivity management 22 program, and by the subcommittee they review all 50.59 23 evaluations. 24 In summary, the NSAB has changed and is 25 contributing to the preparation of the site for restart. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
34 1 CHAIRMAN VACKSON: So how do the results that come 2 from these reviews get woven back into what is actually 3 going on at the site? 4 MR. GOEBEL: For the NSAB? 5 CHAIR!uN JACKSON: Yes. 6 MR. GOEBEL: The Oversight Committee? ' 7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes. 8 MR. GOEBEL: Well, since all the leadership team 9 essentially is on the board, we all go to all the 10 meetings -- 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes. 12 MR. GOEBEL: The data which then comes out of 13 those meetings is taken by the individual officers back and 14 incorporated within their -- 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So do action items come out of 16 the -- 17 MR. GOEBEL: Action items come out of the meeting, 18 they're tracked at each meet i ng we -- 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I see. 20 MR. GOEBEL: If they are assigned -- for instance, 21 I had a couple I had to answer to last time, and I provide 22 answers when it comes up at the next meeting. 23 MR. CARNS: And the Board chairman communicates 24 directly with Mr. Kenyon and tells him, you know, the things 25 that may need some emphasis, and then he will give us plenty ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034
l 35 l 1 of direction. 2 MR. KENYON: And I also meet separately with the 3 outside consultants to make sure that I'm getting all of the 4 information that I need to have. 5 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Since, you know, one issue that 6 was identified had to do with the robustness and quality of 7 5059 evaluations as opposed to a kind of screening away 8 changes, what are you specifically doing in that area? 9 MR. GOEBEL: Well, the NSAB is looking at each one ' 10 of them as they go through. They have a subcommittee that's 11 devoted to that effort, and the report trom that 12 subcommittee comes at each meeting, oversight itself is 13 looking at 5059's separate from what the NSAB is doing 14 through surveillances and through audits. 15 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: I see. 16 MR. McELWAIN: A little more specifically on that 17 point, we have had 1,400 people through specific 5059 18 training since the initial back in December when we had the 19 discovery of where we were in relation to past 5059's and 20 screenings in the process, and we have continued along the
. 21 path of having the program enhanced and to make it
- 22. simplified, more streamlined. It's all one place now.
You 23 used to have to go to several different places for a screen, 24 as well as evaluation. We have put that in one place, and 25 it seems to have a better effect. And I think absolutely ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
36 l 1 the results we're getting are much better than they were 2 some time ago, although we're still working on improvement. 3 We monitor in each unit specifically a sampling of the 4 5059's on a periodic basis to see how we're doing, what the 5 results look like, and NSAB has a subcommittee that looks at 6 all of them. 7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 8 MR. GOEBEL: If there are no further questions, 9 I'd like to turn it over to Marty Bowling. 10 MR. BOWLING: Good morning. I will speak to three 11 of the issues -- configuration management, corrective 12 action, and self-assessment. As you know, a significant 13 effort has been undertaken to validate the design, 14 licensing, and operating basis with actual unit 15 configuration. This effort, which is being managed by NU 16 and the NSSS vendor for each unit, systematically looks at 17 each maintenance rule group 1 and 2 systems -- that's 61 18 systems on Unit II, and 88 systems on Unit III -- to verify 19 several things: that the licensing commitments are being 20 met, that the design and safety analyses are conservative, 21 the FSAR and the tech specs are correct, and the unit 22 physical configuration and operating procedures reflect . 23 these requirements. 24 In addition, a total of 51 programs have been 25 reviewed for both Units II and III. These include safety or ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 37 1 risk-related programs such as environmental qualification, 2 Appendix R, as well_as the process change centrol programs, 3 design control, drawing control, document control. 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you are ensuring that the 5 correct procedures are in place to accomplish this? 6 MR. BOWLING: That's correct. It's not only a 7 technical- review but it's in terns of configuration 8 management, the process review, how do you maintain. So 9 we're interested in restoring, validating, and maintaining. 10 CHAIRFUdi JACKSON: And are you also monitoring
-11 adherence to procedures?
12 MR. BOWLING: We do have a performance indicator 13 that looks at that, and we are also -- and I think it's 14 discussed in your issue book, in the ptocess of developing 15 additional metrics for that very issue- . 16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: How would you say they're 17 trending, adherence, procedure adherence, how is that 18 trending? 19 MR. BOWLING: The errer rate is not adverse, but 20 it's not where we want it. So we need to focus -- we've 21 just set up the industry program. We're in the process of 22 setting up the industry program, human performance 23 enhancement system. We want more metrics on personnel 24 error, and procedure adherence is a key issue for us. w 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay._ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
' Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
- = _ - -
38 1 MR. BOWLING: With respect to the second bullet on 2 this slide, the loss of confiejaration at Millstone has 3 resulted primarily from a lack of organizational ownership 4 rather than a result of inadequate procedures. 5 To address this point, a group has been 6 established within the Engineering Support Group under Jay , 7 Thayer to be the program owner for configuration management. 8 This group will assist the units in establishing program 9 requirements as well as ensuring program standards are being 10 met, but to provide additional assurance that configuration 11 management and technical accuracy is maintained going 12 forward, two new organizations are being added. 13 The first, which was piloted on Unit 2 in late 14 1996, is Engineering Assurance Group. This group provides 15 critical self-assessment of engineering activities and 16 processes, provides site-wide integration of engineering 17 performance data and trends, and evaluates the effectiveness 18 of corrective actions. 19 The second organizational addition is the 20 establishment of a group'within each unit to be responsible 21 for maintaining configuration control going forward when . 22 making any types of changes in the future. 23 These groups are currently being set up on Unit 2 24 and 3 right now. 25 Results in safety significance of what has been 7d04 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court _ Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
39 1 found-on Units 2 and 3 are characterized in the next three 2 slides, but to put it in perspective, I have selected three 3 ways of looking and characterizing significance. 4 First is to look at the findings that have 5 required changes to the design, licensing or operating 6 basis. 7 The second perspective is to evaluate 8 qualitatively the change in risk that have resulted from 9 those findings that have been determined to meet the 10 reportability requirements under 5072 and 5073. 11 -The third perspective is to identify those-items 12 -that potentially question operability or performance of 13 -intended function on maintenance rule-required systems. 14 On this slide, about 700 items on each unit have 15 been identified that will require changes to the licensing 16 basis -- that's the FSAR -- the design basis, drawings 17 calculations, specifications, and the operating basis, which 18 is the technical specifications and procedures, or result in
.19 a modification to the plant.
20 To characterize safety 91gnificance, our safety 21' analysis group under Jay Thayer.has evaluated individually 22 each reportable item discovered on Units 2 and 3 since the 23 begint.ing of 1996.using a qualitative risk-based 24 methodology. 25 .Specifically, we have screened each reportable l ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,. Suite 300 Washington,-D.C. 20005 (202)' 842-0034
40 1 event that has occurred on Unit 2 and 3, and from this 2 screening, we have identified those that may be potentially 3 aafety significant. A more detailed review of these are 4 then conducted. 5 CHAIRFDM JACKSON: Are you going to put them 6 through, you know, a more analytical process, the ones that
- 7 can be, you know, like a PRA type analysis or anything like 8 that?
9 MR. BOWLING: Effectively, we have -- when I speak 10 qualitatively, our PRA people are the ones that are 11 performing this and they are using a consistent methodology 12 for the qualitative review and, therefore, their judgment as 13 presented on this slide would be reflective if they ran the 14 calculation. 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. As you uncover, you 16 know, what may be generic issues, are you sharing that 17 perspective both with the NRC and the industry, say through 18 INPO? 19 MR. BOWLING: Yes,_either through the INPO 20 network, and at least in several cases, we have issued Part 21 21st. 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes, because I'm interested in, , 23 given the extensive review that you're doing, aside from it 24- being important for you, and that's the primary focus, in 25 getting the most for the industry -- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 41 1 MR. BOWLING: Right. 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- out of this. So as such, I 3 think both you and our staff have a responsibility to i 4 identify issues with generic applicability so that a proper 5 industry-wide safety assessment can come out of this. So 4 6 I'm going to ask the staff the same question. 7 COMMISSIONER DIAS: Excuse me. 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Sure. 9 COMMISSIONER DIAS: What's the period of time in 10 which this reportable items covers? 11 MR. BOWLING: It's from the beginning of 1996, ! 12 roughly the period of the shutdowns. 13 If I can give an example, for Unit 2, since the 14 beginning of 1996, 68 license event reports, LERs, have been 15 submitted, and going through this process, 26 of those 68 16 received a detailed review based on potential safety 17 significance. Three were determined to have some safety le significance as shown on the slide. Of these three, all 19 three were tat 6d monorate and concerned a -- first a loss of 20 capability to backwash the service water strainers due to 21 icing; second one was the containment sump screens having 22 openings larger than analyzed; and the third one was 23 insufficient reactor building component cooling water flow 24 to high pressure safety injection pump seal coolers. 25 Mr. Brothers will discuss Unit 3 items later in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 4
i 42 ! r i his presentation, i 2 Overall, we can concludo that most deficiencies f 3 are-not individually of high safety significance. However, j 4 we clearly understand that the large number of deficiencies f 5 that have required resolution are indicative of programmatic 6 weakness in maintaining configuration ccntrol. l 7 The next slide shows the last way of looking at-8 significance and significant items required to be resolved ; i 9 before restart are defined in NRC's April 16. 1997, letter ! 10 pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54 (f) as itetas covered by the :
- 11. maintenance rule, which raised potential questions 12 '
concerning operability or the ability to perform their 13- intended function. The total number and current status of 1 14 these items are shown on this slide. 15 You will note that there are more deferral items t 16 on Unit 3 than on Unit 2. This is a direct result of the i 17 completion of the configuration management structure
~
18 discovery on Unit 3 whereas, on Unit 2, it is still in 19- -progress. It is expected that the Unit 2 list will 20 -increase. 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So that-is why there is such a I 22 disparate -- , 23 MR. BOWLING: At this point, that is our 24 assessment.- 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you have clear criteria ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,fLTD. . Court Reporters
-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 ,
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)-842-0034 i
. . - . - - - - . - -._---- a..,=.-.---...- - . _ . - . - .
43 I based on operability and risk for the categorizations of the 2 items? Do you have criteria that you could actually lay out 3 to us? 4 MR. BOWLING: Right. Question number 3 to the
$ letter asks for the methodology for deferral and so it steps 6 through the logic and that will be discussed in more detail 7 with the NRC at the August 12 --
8- CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you are not prepared to tell 9 us at this stage? The answer is, no? 10 Bill, you were saying no? 1. heard a "no" from 11 back there?- -- 12 - MR. CARNS: We have a procedure. 13 MR.-BOWLING: Yes, we have that information. But, 14 basically, we have taken all of cur condition reports, that 15 is the threshold for reentering a deficient condition, it 16 goes through the screen, is it a maintenance rule, is it on 17 a maintenance rule system and then we have an expert panel 18 assess the actual' condition report on an individual basis as 19 to whether it affects, potentially atfects intended function 20 or operability and what we are most interested in is making
.21 sure that nothing that goes on the deferral. list is 22 important to operability or. intended' function. That goes 23 through additional reviews and screens and we are adding all 24 the way.through our plant oporating safety committee to make 25 sure that those are correct.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,-Suite _300 Washington, D.C.-20005 (202) 842-0034
l 44 i 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I am making my 2 announcement. I would like the NRC staff and each of the 3 contractors to discuss the significance of items on this 4 list and the issue of whether they believe they are clear 5 criteria based on operability and risk for making the 6 parsing. And then whether there is any time migration as we - 7 get closer to restart of items from one list to the other. 8 They get the advantage of getting forewarning. 9 You don't get that advantage. 10 MR. BOWLING: Okay, I'm going to move to 11 corrective ection. 12 An improved corrective action program has been 13 implemented at Millstone. This program contains the 14 elements necessary for timely corrective action but its 15 long-term effectiveness still must be demonstrated. Simply 16 stated, we have been good at identifying problems but not in 17 providing permanent solutions, especially for key nite wide 18 programmatic and process issues. 19 On the progress side, approximately 99 percent of 20 the condition reports are submitted at the time of 21 discovery. This demonstrates that our employees recognize ' 22 the need to promptly document potential discrecancies. 23 Also, which reports are promptly screened for operability 24 and reportability, usually within 24 hours and no backlog 25 exists. Assignments for corrective action are being ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 , Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
45 1 generally made within 30 days and only a small backlog a 2 currently exists. 3 Finally, the quality of the corrective action 4 plans is being evaluated by each unit's management review 5 team, with Units 2 and 3 averaging over three on a scale of 6 zero to four where four is the acceptance of the action plan 7 without changes or comments. 8 Management expectations for low threshold and 9 self-iden' ification are also being met as shown in the next 10 alide. Total condition reports written are a good 11 indication of threshold and reflect management's expectation 12 that, if in doubt, write a condition report. The large 13 number of condition reports being written at Millstone,.over 14 600 per month, reflect this expectation. The percent self-15 identified, that is by the line organizations and 16 independent nuclear oversight organization under Dave ! 17 Goebel, as opposed to the NRC or having actual events, are 18 now approaching the high 90 percent level. 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSONt Do any of the line-identified 20 items include event-identified items? 21 MR BOWLING: Those are -- the event driven are 1 22 not counted as self-assesmnent -- 23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: They are excluded? 24 MR. BOWLING: They are specificelly excluded 25 because that is not self-identified if it is event driven. l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 r
46 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thanks. 2 MR. BOWLING: With respect to actual completion of 3 ccrrective c;ticn, progress is being made but the backlogs 4 do not yet shnw rro3ress because of the emphasis on the l 5 struct ure of configuration management discovery. As this 6 discornry 12 campleted, as it is on Unit 3, currently, the 7 organization is able to focus more on fix2ag. 8 The next slide shows the number of condition 9 reports that have had corrective action completed and 10 verified in 1997. It is over 3,500 items. It does 11 demonstrate thne the corrective action process is working 12 but we clearly understand from a number of surveys and 13 employee feedbacks, including from Little Harbor, that the 14 efficiency and effectiveness of the corrective action 15 program needs improvement. 16 We are committed to making the necessary 17 improvements to ensure long-term effectiveness, 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Now, you are minimizing 19 resources on Unit 1. I note that you seem to have closed 20 quite a number of items in the June time frame. Does that 21 mean they don't cost any money? 22 MR. McELWAIN: No, it was a concerted effort , 23 because we have such a large backlog on Unit 1 so we spent 24 the month of June focusing on evaluating the backlog as well 25- as closing issues and we could close what wasn't resource ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
47 1 related in this context. 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Commissioner McGaffigan? 3 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Is Unit 1 performing 4 worse than the other two? The staff in its paper points out 5 that they had an inspection report dated June and they found 6 that the Unit 1 corrective action program had some 9 7 significant-problems -- revision of condition report process 8 poorly implemented, et cetera. 9 Are Units 2 and 3 running well ahead of Unit 1 in 10- terms of your satisfaction with the corrective action 11 programs? 12 MR. KENYON: Why don't you speak to corrective 13 action and I'll talk more go.4erally. 14 MR. McELWAIN: Okay. Specifically, with respect 15 to corrective action, we had some very good i.iputs from the 16 residents at the end of the last inspection period about 17 specifics of how we're implementing the corrective action 18 program, whether people were completely easy with and 19 feeling easy with the implementation of identification of 20 CRs, which is corrective'-- condition reports. Since then, 21- we took that to heart and we've been making strides to make 22 those issues be more in line with Unit 2 &nd Unit 3.
-23 So my perception is that Unit 3 and Unit 2 were -24 ahead-of us.- I wouldn't say immeasurably ahead of us, but 25 slightly ahead of Unit 1 in the implementation and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
48 1 corrective action program, and we have taken stepr to 2 improve that. 3 MR. KENYON: But we are at a reduced resource 4 level on Unit 1 and our expeccation is we will rt4mp up to a 5 full recovery effort around the end of this year. 6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. ' 7 MR. BOWLING: Going back to the word slide, I want 8 to talk about the last bullet. 9 Corrective actionn are also required for key site-10 wide issues that have resulted from past ineffective 11 leadership, really the cause of many of the program and 12 process weaknesses that we currently are experiencing. 13 Eleven site-wide issues a::e identified in your briefing book 14 and discussed in more detail. We're discussing six of those 15 with you this morning. 16 We understand that the ultimately effectiveness of 17 the corrective action program will be measured by our -18 ability to recognize and correct-these-site-wide 19 deficiencies. 20 Now moving to self-assessment, the principal focus
- 21. of-self-assessment to date has-been on discovery, Over 150, 22 as I mentioned earlier, assessments covering all areas of ,
-23 our organization have been completed in the first half of 24 '97. But now we're refocusing our self-acseusment to affirm -25 our readiness-for conduct of safe operation. To accomplish ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.-20005 (202) 842-0034
49 l l 1 this, a multi-tier approach is being used. 2 To affirm our readiness to conduct safe i 3 operations, system engineers are verifying their systems' l 4 readiness, and each unit functicnal department is assessing 5 areas that are important to the conduct of safe operation. 6 This effort has been piloted on Unit 2, and currently both 7 Units 2 and 3 are conducting these assessmentn. 8 We expect each unit manager to affirm their 9 department's readiness and all departments will need to be i 10 ready before we can go forward. 1 11 To help assess integrated unit and site-wide ! 12 organizational readiness, we will use an external INPO-led 13 industry team. This assessment is scheduled for September, 14 Nuclear oversight will also independently assess 15 and affirm unit readiness for OSTI and restart. And 16 finally, the Nuclear Safety Assessment Board, HSAB, will 17 independently review and affirm the independent nuclear 18 oversight function -- that the oversight function is ready. 19 Only after these assessments are complete and affirm our 20 readiness will we tell you that we are ready for the OSTI. 21 As the actual heat-up and return to service 22 occurs, Operations will conduct detailed walkdowns to verify 23 line ups and equipment readiness. Assessments will also be 24 conducted prior to each mode change to verify that the 25 systems and the equipment that are necessary for operability ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
50 . 1 are operable and properly aligned. This review will be 2 conducted by unit management and independently re'tiewed by l 3 the Plant Operating Review Committee. l 4 Finally, the Nuclear Safety Assessment Board will l 5 independently review and affirm unit readiness for restart. ; 6 If there are no further questions, I'll turn it . 7 over to Mike Brothers. , 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes, I want to hear this, but 9 this gives me an opportunity to make a comment so that I ; 10 don't forget. . 11 It is very important, and that's why you were 12 being pressed on this issue, our understanding what your 13 criteria are, how you measure progress, because here you're 14 being presented as having a key role in terms of, for 15 instance, evaluating self-assessments that are required for 16 readiness for the OSTI and for restart. If your own 17 processes are not strong or are weak, thin, first of all and 18 most importantly, it doesn't help the role that you're 19 supposed to play for a company itself. 20 MR. BOWLING: Right. 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And secondly, it's definitely 22 going to be something that we're going to pay attention to. . 23 MR. BOWLING: Yes. 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 25 MR. BROTHERS: Thank you, Marty. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
51 l 1. Good morning. l 2 Today, my presentation consists of two major 3 areas. The first is progress on achieving and maintaining a 4 safety conscious work environment, and the second is a 5 general review of the current readiness of Millstone 3 in
- 6 particular.
7 As stated earlier, this presentation is intended 8 to provide an overview. More detail is included for both 9 the safety conscious work environment and Millstone 3 10 readiness in the briefing book that was provided to you on 11 July 28. 12 Establishing and maintaining a safety conscious 13 work environment is central to our success. We understand 14 that the substantial failure to foster a safety conscious 15 work environment played a prominent role in a decline of the 16 performance on Millstone Station. This leadership team 17 understands and fully accepts the responsibility of line 18 management in establishing and maintaining a safety 19 conscious work environment. We also understand that in the 20 long run, a safety conscious work environment will 21 significantly enhance our ability to conduct everyday 22 business. 23 This is simply because a safety conscious work
-24 environment will ensure that all issues and/or concerns are 25 on the table and being addressed. Finally, and most ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
52 1 . importantly, establishing and maintaining a safety conscious 2 work environment is the right thing to do. This slide is 3 Millstone's one-sentence summary of what a safety-conscious 4 work environment means to this team and this station. This 5 definition is consistent-with the NRC's draft policy 6 statement titled Freedom of Employees in a Nuclear Industry
- 7 to Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retribution dated 8 May 14, 1996.
9 In the summary of the NRC's draft policy 10 statement, it is stated that licensees will establish and 11 ' maintain safety-conscious environmento in which employees 12 feel free to raise safety concerns, both to their management 13 and to the NRC without fear of retallation. 14 We have broken down the NRC's draft policy into 18 15 attributes of a safety-conscious work environment. We 16 believe that the combination of the comprehensive plan to 17 address employee concerns and our overall plan to establish 18 and_ maintain _a_ safety-conscious work environment addresses 19 all of the attributes identified in the NRC's draft policy. 20 This slide addresses the progress we have made in 21 establishing a safety-conscious work environment. ' 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -Let me just ask you a question. , 23- When you speak of the NU nuclear-team, you mean everybody? 24 MR, BROTHERS: Yes. 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Including contractors on site? ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
53 1 MR. BROTHERS: That's right, correct, 2 The most important points to make are that our own 3 assessments show improvement as alluded by Buzz and by Dave 4 Goebel, the PII showed an 11-percent improvement in the 5 culture survey and the leadership assessment showed a 21 6- percent aggregate improvement from 1996. 7- The assessment from Little Harbor which will be 8 presented to you saparately today shows significant 9 improvement from-1996 until 1997. The Little Harbor 10 assessment also points out the need to make performance 11 improvements in our employee concerns program and, two,
-12 improveiour recognition of employees who raise concerns 13 which are validated and resolved to gain increased benefits 14 from the self-assessments being conducted by the 15 organization and to improve our ability to recognize and 16 remediate instances of chilling effect within our 17 organization.
18 In addition to the items just discussed, Little 19 Harbor has identified two additional potential problems. 20 First, 37 percent of the people who have used the employee 21 concerns program will not use it again. We attribute this 22 to the fact that the employee concerns program refers
-23 concerns within their own confidentiality rules to line 24 organizations like the line or human resourcas. The people 25 who responded negatively'to this question wanted the ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 1300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 2
54 l 1 concerns to be handled by-the employee concerns program !
-2 versus the rest of the organization.
3 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Excuse me, Mike, I'm sorry. I !; 4 need to go back here because I am trying to understand some 5 of the qualitative statements. l 6 On the previous page where you say what a safety- ! 7 conscious work environment is, it says it is an environment ! 8 where-all members st the NU nuclear team feel comfortable : 9 _ raising any isbue. I want to understand whether they -- the 10 meaning of that. Do they feel comfortable, do they feel . 11 . compelled? Is it -- have we rais1d it to the point where it . f 12 is like an-obligation to raise the issue or are they just I t 13 comfortable? 14 MR BROTHERS: We are wor; ting to reach the point 15 where they feel compelled. Our surveys indicate the people 16 at thic point, the large percentage, in fact,-feel 17 comfortable. I would not say we have reached the point . 18 where they are compelled. 19 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: But that will be a goal? 20 -MR. BROTHERS: That is where we are trying to go. ; 21 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Thank you. , 22 MR. BROTHERS: The'second item that Little Harbor . 23 has identified was that 53 percent of the open employee 24 concerns have attributes of harassment and/or intimidation. 25 Although we don't yet know the significance of this finding, 4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
55 1 we-are committed to identifying problem areas within the 2 organization by utilizing the many tools which are available 3 to us such as the employee concerns program itself, the 4 Employee Concerns Oversight Panel, cultural surveys and 5 leadership surveys to identify and ferret out those pockets 6 of problems in the organization, 7 Although we have made progress in recognizing the 8 necessity of continuing to monitor our progress toward 9 establishing a safety-conscious work environment, this slide 10 illustrates the techniques that we will e:nploy to monitor 11 and adjust our progress toward the goal of establishing and 12 maintaining a safety-conscious work environment. 13 If there are any questions on this section of my 14 presentation, I intend to go now into a specific review of 15 the readiness of Millstone 3. 16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What is the key indicator that 17 you would highlight in terms of saying that you have made 18 progress in this area? 19 MR. BROTHERS: I would list three. The PII 20 survey, in particular the elements of the questions which
~
21 are 23 questions broken down into 10 categories which 22 indicated a very strong score in the PII survey. Those same 23 questions were asked again in a different format in the 24 leadership survey and, finally, the indication of 25 confidentiality requests within the employee concerns ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
56 1 program itself is still indicating a downward trend. 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 3 MR. BROTHERS: This slide shows the milestones 4 over the remainder of 1997 for Millstone Unit 3. At this 5 time, our goal is to have Millstone 3 physically ready and 6 ready for OSTI, Operational Safety Team Inspection, by
- 7 September 30. This date supports the NRC's scheduled OSTI 8 start date of October 21.
9 The next series of slides shows specific 10 challenges to our internal milestone of September 30. The 11 November 22, 1997, date for ready for restart is constrained 12 by the approval of all of the license amendment requests 13 currently identified. In addition, our final 50.54 foxtrot 14 response will be submitted on or before this ('.te. 15 The December date reflects the current schedule 16 for the presentation to the NRC commissioners. 17 Listed here are the major challenges to our 18 internal milestone of September 30 to be physically ready 19 and ready for OSTI. I will talk in some detail about each 20 of these challenges on the next four slides. Our commitment 21 is to provide periodic updates regarding our ability to 22 support an OSTI start date of October 21. We intend to . 23 provide a final go/no-go assessment of our ability to 24 support a 10/21 OSTI on or before September 15. 25 This indicator, one of the ones you asked a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
57 question on, shows all_the_ action requests-which are open < 1-2 and_ required to be closed prior to restart.- Although the 3 trend is in the right--direction-to support-a September 30 4 -internal-milestone for ready for OSTI, the current work-off 5- rate will not support the September 30 date. The completion 6 of discovery-for maintenance rule Group 1 and Group 2 7_- systems on July 16 resulted in an increase in items which 8 are required-to be completed to support our September 30 9 milestone. This influx associated with both the competition 10 of discovery and the conditional report backlog has slowed i 11 the overall decrease of items required for restart. Now 12 that discovery is complete for maintenance rule Group 1 and 13 2 systems and we are current on our conditional report 14 evaluations, we expect this indicator to turn and support
-15 completion by or very near September 30th.
16 The significant items-list for Millstone 3 17 contains 86 items which translate into approximately 200 18 individual; items which need to'be resolved to support-our-19 September 30th milestone. 20 On-July 31st:we crossed the halfway point in terms _21. of submitting significant items list packages. We are 22- currently approximately 20 packages behind our work-off 23- curve. Although it remains _a challenge to. achieve our
-24 September 30th date, it should be understood that the 25- :significant items list is largely a derivative' list.
ANN FILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters
-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
58 1 By that I mean that accomplishing goals associated 2 with tasks required for restart and modifications also along 3 with automated work orders will allow us to make this goal. 4 Feedback from the NRC continues to show that the 5 quality of our significant item list closure packages 6 remains high and although we are slightly behind our planned 7 schedule continues to reinforce that we will not sacrifice 8 quality in response to scheduli pressure. 9 This slide to the next one -- 10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Dia ? 11 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Again, you are giving us, when 12 you are talking good data, if some of that data could be 13 just put in here, you know, number of systems in Millstone 3 14 challenges, seeing how many systems are. you will allow the 15 Commissioners not having to go back and forth, so just a 16 minor point for the next occasion. 17 MR, BROTHERS: Okay, thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Because we are getting better. 19 MR. BROTHERS: Thank you. 20 This slide and the next one are directly tied to 21 physical work. 22 Ic should be noted that the physical workers 23 assigned to Millstone 3 are just now transitioning to what 24 we call an outage mode. They are starting this week and by 25 August lith will be in two 10-hour shifts or 20 hour days. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
59 1 Up until now they have been roughly in 40-hour weeks.
'2 This was-because the amount of physical work which 3 was available to the field'did not warrant areund-the-clock 4- coverage. We expect this indicator and the next one to show 5 a-dramatic improvement over the next month.
6 This slide shows the current modifications which
-7 .are required to be complete prior to restart.
8 The actual data that we have as of the' unit, this 9 is as of July 15th. The actual data indicates approxi .ately 10 40 mods are now completed through engineering versus the 25
-11 which-is indicated on this slide, e 12- CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, so it has-changed?- e 13 MR. BROTHERS: Yes, 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Because I was going to say it's 15- missed inconsistency. Okay.
16 MR BROTHERS: The; engineering' portion of the:e-
- modificationu are'on schedule, to be completed by Augusc 18- 15th.- Meeting--the engineering-schedule and the completion 19 of discovery give us good confidence that we can meet our 20: ' milestone on September 30th for-ready'for OSTI.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -When you say awaiting: 22- engineering, so-what about the actual procurement of what D 23- -you need it there are-physical changes? Where does~that - 24 stand?
-25 : MR. BROTHERS: That is in the works. We have only ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court' Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C."20005 (202) 842-0034
60 1 identified one item, which has a long lead-time at this 2 time, which will impact potentially the September 30th date 3 out of all the mods, so nothing in the way of long lead-4 time at this point. 5 This slide shows our current backlog of automated 6 work orders. We have two goals. The first is less than or , 7 equal to 500 power block automated work orders and a second B is less than or equal to 350 maintenance rule Group 1 and/or 9 Group 2 automated work orders. This 350 is a subset of the 10 overall 500 goal. 11 Although this curve is essentially flat, in other 12 words input roughly equates to our competition rate, this is 13 the case for two reasons. 14 Number one, we have just completed discovery for 15 maintenance rule Group 1 and Group 2 systems, and, number 16 two, up until August 4th the physical workforce was 17 essentially working a normal 40-hour work week. 18 With discovery complete and the workforce now 19 transitioning to an outage mode, we have good confidence 20 that we can meet our milestone of September 30th for ready 21 for OSTI. 22 Although we are challenged, we remain confident of 4 23 our ability to support OSTI's staru date of October 21st. 24 During the course of the current shutdown, we have 25 accomplished a significant amount of work. This slide ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
61 1 -summarizes the more significant' work that has been 2 completed. 3 I want to emphasize the completion of discovery as 4 on. maintenance rule Group 1 and Group 2 systems, which was 5 accomplished-on 7-16, and the elimination of conditional
*. 6 report evaluation backlogs, which was completed-on July 5th, 7 which was a previous conversation we had at the last 8 Commission meeting.
9 This slide and the next slide summarize the most 10 significant items found during the 16 months of discovery on 11 Millstone Unit 3. 12- In' terms of once again talking about the 13 significance, high significance is a significant impact on ; 14 overall core damage frequency but no impact upon public 15 risk. Moderate is a medium impact-on core damage 16 -frequency -- large uncertainties associated with-it. Low is 17 no measurable consequence on core damage frequency but 18 uncertainties associated with it. 19 I want to make-two points with respect-to both of 20 these two slides. 21- The most.significant item found to date, ECCS or 22- Emergency Core Cooling System throttl'e valves, is an 23 industry problem which was identified early in 1996. It 24 -wasn't identified specifically as part of our discovery 25 effort-but we included it here. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
1 I 62 1 of the eight most significant items found, six are 2 from original construction or design. Only two are the 3 result of modifications. The two that are a result of 4 modifications are the bypass flow around service water 5 strainers due to the modification that we had performed and 6 the SBO or Station Black Out or diesel battery capacity, 7 both from modifications. 8 The others were all original construction. 9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you a question. 10 If you look at -- I am just kind of trying to 11 probe the issue of the categorization -- the recirculation 12 spray system items, both the sump and the pump cavitation, 13 don't they impact both trains of safety-related equipment? 14 MR. BROTHERS: They do. The reason they come out 15 in the moderate area, let's talk about cavitation, is 16 although we don't meet the design basis in terms of 17 crediting the containment pressure to help the net positive 18 suction head, it reality that net positive suction precsure 19 will be there because the containment will be at elevated 20 pressure. 21 The way PRA works is to actually look at the 22 reality and the likelihood of conditions that will be called , 23 on to function and what results is the system being outside 24 of design basis does not necessarily significantly impact 25 its ability to perform its safety function. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
63 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I would like the NRC Staff to 2 comment on.this when'you_come to the table._ And can you 3 comment on whether NRC-required testing was adequate to pick 4' up on these-items or not? 5 MR. BROTHERS: That's a question to me? 6 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes. 7 MR. BROTHERS: The question that-was done on each 8- of these original construction was testing that was put 9- together by_the licensee,-RSS, and the architect-engineer 10 and the NSSS vendor during the 1985-86 time frame in 11 conformance with a standardized program that Westinghouse 12 puts together for this generation plant. RSS is a system 13 that's not common to very many Westinghouse plants, so that 14 testing was put together by primarily the licensee and the 15 architect-engineer. 16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And what about the station 17 blackout diesel battery capacity? 1 18 MR. BROTHERS: The-station blackout diesel battery 19 capacity actually meets the design and license requirements, 20 but what we found was that in a more likely station blackout 21 scenario it wouldn't-perform its function. And briefly put, 22 the most -- _the way that station blackout rule works-is that 23 you assume loss of offsite' power and both diesels fail to 12 4 start. In that scenario, everything's fine. In the more 25 likely_ scenario that one or more diesels runs for a period ANN RILEY &-ASSOCIATES, LTD.
' Court Reporters 4 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C._20005 (202) 842-0034
- ,- -- . -. -- . .- .. ---.- - .~-
64 1 of time;and then fails, the battery would have been sitting 2 dead and would not: allow you to_ start the station blackout 3 -. diesel. So although we meet _the regulations, it-doesn't
'4 meet our standards for performance.
5- CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So are any of-these ones that 4 6' would have fallen out as a consequence.of-any regulatory 7 requirements? 8 MR. BROTHERS: MOV performance perhaps would be-9 the one that falls out from generic letter 8910 and the 10 followup onis. And RSS sump screens, there was industry 11 information out there that was leading us to look at there, 12 -but it was concurrent-with our discovery of the problem. 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 14 MR.-BROTHERS: The recognize the need to l 15 significantly upgrade the' performance of our Operations l l 16 Department, and we fully intend to accomplish this upgrade 1 17 prior to our scheduled-entry into mode 4 on November 22. 11 8 The recent configuration-management problems along with the 19 extended period of time that we have been shut down require.
- 20 us to take additional actions to ensure that we are 21' confident of our ability to safely operate the plant upon 22 . return to power operations.
23 This slide summari=es-the actions being taken. 24 Standards are being~ raised 1via revision of the Millstone 3 125 and the. Millstone-station conduct of operations. Challenges ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. O Court-Reporters , 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 I (202) 842-0034
65 1 such as temporary mods, operator work runs are being 2 dramatically reduced. And, finally, our operators are 3 receiving simulator training in startup and power operation 4 as well as visiting plants of similar vintage to witness 5 startup operations. 6 In summary, my presentation covered two areas. In 7 the area of safety-conscious work environment, we believe 8 that we have made progress towards establishing a safety-9 conscious work environment, but recognize the need to make 10 specific improvements, particularly in regard to performance 11 improvements in the Employee Concerns Program. With regard 12 to Millstone 3 readiness, although the milestones indicated 13 are challenging, we believe that we will be ready to support 14 the scheduled OSTI start date of October 21 and the 15 Commission presentation on December 19. 16 This concludes my presentation. If there are no 17 further questions, I'll turn it over to Bruce Kenyon for 18 closing remarks. . 19 MR. KENYON: Just briefly in closing the progress 20 we presented today I think emphasizes -- 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Excuse me, I'm sorry, Mr. 22 Kenyon. 23 . COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: This is another one of 24 these schedule things, but the staff is going to tell us 25 October 13 is the start of the OSTI. You've been saying ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
._ ._._ . . . ..._._......_.m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _
j 66
-1 October 21 fall the way along. So maybe this is good news to. :
2 : you, they're arriving eight-days earlier. But the material i3 - that's in th6ir. presentation-I'll'just point out to you says l 1 4 - October 13, au i I don't know whether'there's a disconnect.or 4 . h 5- not.
-6 MR. BROTHERS: As-Marty said, we certainly are not -
7 intending to schedule the NRC. We used the latest-I 8- information we had from'the schedule. But we will adjust-L 9 our dates to conform with that. i 10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: And the other thing that I-11 I noticed was, and maybe this again goes to our next 12- presentation, but the ICAVP was in the schedule that you ; 13 showed us earlier, at the earlier presentation, was going _tx) L. 14 be finished by around the.2nd of September. Now it's around 15- the'2nd of October on-the staff, chart, and I noticed on 16 Sargent & Lundy's chart it's the 10th of October. What's 17f the slippage ~been attributed to since the last presentation? 4 18- MR. BROTHERS: Well, I'll give you my version, but 19: clearly I think it's more correctly answered by the-e 20 contractor. We didn't c6mplete discovery until-July-14, 21 which precluded them'from-selecting-the remaining two
._22 systems to do vertical slice-reviews on,'and.that ,
23 necessitated a modification. "But I1think they're more the. 24 correct. people-to answer.that question. i-n ~25 - COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: .Okay. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 4 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
67
- 1' MR. KENYON: _Okay. ;In closing, I--think we've made-2 a_-lot of progress. Clearly the recovery of f.he Millstone
_ units is still_a work in progress. -In gene *:al our 4- expectations are being met, but as-I indicated in'my opening 5 -remarks, there are several areas where we're not yet
. 6 satisfied-with our progress. Not to really repeat all of 7- those areas, but there are portions of oversight, portions 8
of the Corrective Action Program, portions of the safety-9 conscious work environment, work control training, conduct 10 of operations are areas that are a concern to us as of 11 today. I would expect co have most if not all of these 12 ' areas on track by the time of our next quarterly update, and 13 frankly I expect to have closed a significant number of the 14 -15 issues that we're tracking as najor issues for Millstone. 15 This concludes our_ presentation, and we'd be 16 pleased to address any additional questions.
-CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me ask you a couple.of 18 questions. I mean, you have things where thinge-don't meet 19- -success criteria but meet management expectations, and vice 20 versa, and earlier you'd been talking about various 21 performance indicators. And so.the question I have is what l22 is the tie-in then between the performance: indicators, the 2 3 --
success criteria, and management expectations, and why are ' 24 they not all leading to'the same conclusion and result?
- 25 MR. KENYON: Well, success criteria indicates l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters , 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i _d
l 68 1 where we ultimately want to be. Management expectations are 2 indicating to you how we feel we're doing at our current 3 point in time. Key performance indicators are an important 4 input to our evaluation but certainly not the sole input. 5 So performance indicators say what they say and we are 6 giving you our current assessment. Success criteria - 7 indicates what we believe needs to be met in order to close 8 the issue. 9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I guess then -- I am not 10 going to argue with how you choose to use what you choose to 11 use but, obviously, I am arguing with you. But all I would 12 simply say to you is that only partially meeting the 13 criteria that say where you want to go and somehow implying 14 that management expectations are fully met is an oxymoron as 15 far as I am concerned. But -- 16 MR. KENYON: Well, I am certainly not trying to 17 argue. 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But you will, too. 19 [ Laughter.] 20 MR. KENYON: What we are trying to communicate and 21 if we are not communicating it well then we will endeavor to
- 22 do it better next time but it was an effort to give you, if 23 we are trying to be here and we started way down here and we 24 think we are on a reasonable track, then we are saying our 25 cxpectations are being met in terms of our progress.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
_. . .= . . .
-69
- 1. On the-other hand,'I: indicated that there were 2 certain-issues that, based on where we think we need to be 3 atithis point in time, we are not there yet.
4 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, so this column should 5 really say management expectations met re progress or with 6 respect to progress? 7 MR. KENYON: Yes and we will try for the next time 8 to use clarifying words. But that is to give you a sense of 9 whether we think we are making adequate progress on the 10- issue in relation to the overall. 11- CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And also I guess I would 12 further say then if it is with respect to progress-and you 13 have an area like training where you have success criteria. 14 that say that these success criteria are partially met and 15 you had a stand-down in June and you have management 16 expectations met "no" in this case with respect to this 17 progress, I am confused again in terms of how it is partial l 18 if just in June-you had a stand-down. E19 MR. KENYON:= Okay. Any particular= area tends to 20- -have a number of success criteria. If we can look at any ! 21 particular criterion and say that that particular. criterion 22: has been met, we will indicate that we are partially there. 23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: This is what I want'you to-do. 24: This is like my fellow-commissioner here. I would like you 25 to say what those success criteria are and how they play ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250.I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
70 1 into your management judgments and how the success criteria 2 and your judgments of whether they are met or not derive 3 from what the performance indicators say. Because it 4 doesn't -- you know, you have these chings that appear to be 5 somewhat disconnected. 6 MR. KENYON: We will try and do the.t better. As 7 you look at each issue, and training is an issue, we did . 8 indicate the success criteria and we did, in the concluding 9 statement, endeavor to indicate where we think we are and 10 why. It was hard to put it on a slide but I believe it is 11 there in the book and if we are not adequately communicating 12 it in the book, we will try to make that clearer next time. 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes, I think you need to work 14 on that. 15 Commissioner Dieus? Commissioner Dia ? 16 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I have just a comment that we 17 appreciate the support material. I think that was good. If 18 we could ask you to provide us the same information in one-19 tenth of the pages? 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's right, particularly if 21 you are going to sit here and tell us, ah, they are in the 22 book. . 23 MR. KENYON: I appreciate the objective. 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We will never be satisfied. 25 MR. KENYON: It is hard. On the one hand you ask ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
71 1 for more detail and again you ask for less pages. 2 CHAIRMAN JACESON: That's right. You asked for 3 it. 4 (Laughter.) 5 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I think it is a great 6 improvement. Again, I think we -- you are going to come to 7 the point where you will set the industry standard how to 8 report to the Commission and we appreciate that. 9 MR. KENYON: I hope we are very close to it and we 10 appreciate your comments that you made during the 11 presentation and we will try to add those specifics in for 12 the next meeting. 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan, 14 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Don't change the font, 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I am interested, always, in 16 what the presentation material shows. Okay? And what the 17 real progrcss is and the key areas that you yourself have 18 identified. And I still have, you know, discomfort vis-a-19 vis work accomplishment, work control, what seems to be some 20 softnes's in the employee concerns program, et cetera. And 21 then the real track record in the corrective action area 22 because, you-know, that's where the rubber meets the road 23 and again the only reason I needled you on this area of 24 success criteria management expectations, you know, it is 25 nice to talk about all these things but if they don't go in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 72 1 lock step and you can assess leaders and they can have nice 2 qualities but, in the end, the true ef fectiveness of the 3 leader is the effectiveness of the organization. 4 MR. KENYON: And I agree. 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's my point. 6 Okay, thank you very much. 7 We will hear from Sargent and Lundy next, I 8 believe. I am also told we will hear from Parsons Power. 9 Okay. Very good.
'. 0 Good morning. I think we won't do any further 11 introductions and just let you begin. And who's going to be 12 the lead off? You, Mr. Erler?
13 MR. ERLER: Yes. I'm Brian Erler, senior vice 14 president at Sargent & Lundy and the project director for 15 the -- 16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Could you introduce everyone 17 else at the table, please. 18 MR. ERLER: Yes. Well, with me from Sargent & 19 Lundy is Don Schopfer, the vice president and manager for 20 the review team. With Parsons, Dan Curry can -- 21 MR. CURRY: I'm Dan Curry, the vice president of 22 nuclear services for Parsons Power, and my deputy director , 23 for the project, Eric Blocher. 24 MR. ERLER: I will begin the summary of what we 25 have for Unit 3. With the first slide, I've identified just ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. . Court Reporters l 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l
)
1 73 , 1- a little background for the review.. .The confirmatory order _ 2 was-issued on. August 14th for the_ICAVP review, and the
-3 -oversight plan'was released in January of'this year.
4 Sargent & Lundy was selected for the Unit.3 review in - 5 December of 1996 and Parsons Power was selected in February. ! i 6' The overall scope of the review is quite. 71 extensive.- It's a review of the engineering and design I 8 configuration control-process, including,fthen, a- , 9 verification of a current as modified condition against a _10 . design.and licensing design basis, and then a verification' 11- of the design and licensing basis requirements have been 12 translated into operating and maintenance proceedings for 13 operating-of the. stations. , 14 AlF9, the review would be a verification of the 15 system performunce, including reviewLof. actual-tests and 16 witnessing and participating in' tests that are done for
-17 performance of the equipment and systems, and then a review 18 of the corrective action for the' identified deficiencies by:
19 Northeast Utility. 20 .Next slide. 21' The structure of the ICAVP-is really gpite
.22. extensive in.that it covers -- it's put together into three
'23 - tiers to come at the review-in-three different areas. One
.24 is_to verify the-system meets licensing and-design basis'and
-system-functionality. This includes thel physical i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
_1 4 c 74
! lj configuration of the-system, the operatt.n, the maintenance 2 of the system, as'well as design performance of the system. ?
[ 3- Tier II comes at-it.from the accident mitigation 4 parameters'that-are required and works all.of the accident 5 mitigation parameters against the system performance to , 6 assure that they meet the performance requirements for-the 7- system, t . 8 Tier III is a verification that the configuracion i 9 control process has not introduced any changes that.will i 10 cause a'non-conformance against the licensing basis:for the 11 plant. 12- In order for Sargent & Lundy to perform the. 3 l 13 review, we have identified teams to go and review each of p 14 the various tiers.
-15 Tier I is made up of our system review group; Tier 16' -- or actually three groups are included in there: the
- 17- system review-group, the-configuration review group, and the-
-18 operating and maintenance review group. Tier II is the
[ 19' . accident mitigation review group, and Tier III, the 20 programmatic review group. 4 21' In order to-see how that= fits together, I have- ! 22 shown the organization:-chart of the project team. , ! -CHAIRMAN-JACKSON: How is the time split between-23-L 24. your headquarters, NU, at the'NU. site.and'at the NU 25 headquarters in-terms of_how the various groups are' working?-
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i . . Court Reporters 1250.I Street, N.W., Suite 300 2 84 - b3
- ,. . s , , - . - . _ = . _ . , _ _
75 l 1 MR. ERLER: Most of the time is spent really in 2 Chicago. The review -- the documents have all been sent to 3 Chicago. Our review is dealing with those documents that we 4 received. And then except for the configuration review 5 group, which-is on-site doing walkdowns, verifying both the 6 operations as well as the configuration of the plant, that 7 team is on-site 100 percent of the time. 8 The project team is quite extensive. You can see 9 there's over 60-some people that are assigned to this 10 review. These people represent all disciplines experienced 11 in designing and operating and dealing with design 12 modifications for numerous power plants through the years. 13 Sargent & Lundy has put a high degree of importance on this 14 review and has assigned from a manasament level a 15 significant portion of our management for the review, 16 realizing the importance that this has to the industry. 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Tell us what this internal 18 review committee does and does it sit on meetings with the 19 various review groups? 20 MR. ERLER: Yes. The internal review committee is 21 made up of management personnel in various disciplines as 22 well as operating and licensing areas of the station. They 23 will review all identified discrepancies by the review 24 teams. The review teams identified here will identify with 25 -- discrepancies that have been identified as a result of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 1
76 1 going through all of the various documents and test 2 -procedures,.will write up and identify those discrepancies, 3 then-it will be reviewed by the internal review committee 4 before it is sent forward to Northeast Utilities. 5 So they have regular meetings on each identified 6 issue and review every discrepancy that has potentially been- * ' 7 identified. 8 MR, SCHOPPER: And members of the~ internal review 9 committee do, in fact, sit in on project team meetings from 10 various overall project teams and various group meetings. 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 12 MR ERLER: The protocol is quite important for 13 this review in-order to get the right information, but alco 14- to'make sure everything is as open as possible. It's a very 15 extensive procedure in order to make sure the.information 16 that's required from Northeast is obtained by the review 17 team, to make sure that all interested parties have an 18 opportunity to participate and observe at the various 19 meetings. 20 In addition to that, we have, on the home page, we 21 have a web site where we list the audit plan,.which is -- ' the manual is included there.- A calendar of events for all 23 of the various activities as partlof this revie# is ; 24 published on an ongoing current basis. All of the 25 discrepancy reports and resolutions responded to on it will ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202).842-0034
77 1 be included on the web page, and of course the final report l 2 at the time of conclusion of the plan. So it is quite open 3 -information that each of the details of what's been found is 4 available to everybody to see where we stand on the review. 5 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me go back to something.
- 6 You have these various tiers. Now, these tiers relate to 7 tiers of equipment as in --
8 MR. ERLER: Well, they are tiers for the review. 7 9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: They're tiers for the review. 10 MR. ERLER: It's outlined in the oversight plan 11 various ways of coming at the systems and the equipment from 12 difterent directions in order to assure that you have a 13 complete review and performance of all of the systems that 14 are being reviewed. 15 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. So each of the systems 16 that are being reviewed will have a Tier I, a Tier II and a 17 Tier III review? 18 MR. ERLER: No. Actually, Tier I covers the 19 selected systems, and I'll talk about that, but normally 20 what we talk about is four systems for this review. Those 21 are the systems that undergo the Tier I review. The 22 accident mitigation review, the Tier II, is the review of 23 all systems that have an accident mitigation function. We 24 have identified 22 of those systems. The Tier III is a 25 programming review that is intended to cover things outside ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
78
- 1. of.those systems. So it gets broader as it goes down from 2 Tier I, four systems,-Tier II, 22 systems, Tier III can 3 cover the entire gamut of the^88 systems with some selection 4- -of-corrective actions to be reviewed under Tier III and past 5 -changes and things that we'll. talk about in more detail.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 7 MR. ERLER: I would like to turn over, then, the 8 -- rest of the presentation to Don Schopfer. 9 MR. SCHOPFER: If we could start with the first 10- slide, and that's the overhead, and that shows the schedule 11 and the status through the end of July on that schedule. 12 What you can see is the early activities, the planning 13 activities. -We started this schedule -- the schedule shows 14 the start in March. Significant activity happened prior to 15 that to get the audit plan and project instructions to the 16 NRC for approval. 17 CHAIRMAN-JACKSON: Now, how would the schedule be 18 impacted if deficiencies that are uncovered warranted a look 19 at: an. additional system? 20 -MR. SCHOPFER: It would be extended. I: expect
~
21 that it would be extended, because these scheduled durationa 22- on some'of the' reviews are really an estimate based on the , 23- number of-things, number of-findings, discrepancies that 24- 'will be-identified, and if there is significantly more-than 25- that, then that could extend it, or if the scope is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court 1 Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034 ]
79
'l increased as a result of nu ber of significant findings, 2 then that could increase the schedule.
3' CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. And.so'this is 4- predicated on the four systems and-not having:some ; 5' deficiencies identified? j
-6
- MR. SCHOPFER: That's correct. '
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 8 MR. SCHOPFER: As you can see, basically the top 9 half.of'thesel items are the planning and the preparation and-10 the mobilization phase; and starting with item 10 on the' ( 11 schedule is basically into the review. As you can see, 12 we're well into the reviews; however, I believe we're about 13 a week to ten days behind -- a week to two weeks behind
- 14 schedule in the Tier I reviews at=this point. And the other 4
15 activities show they are commensurate with the review on l 16 Tier I. 1: 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What is the reason for the ! -18. . delay? f {- 19 MR. SCHOPFER: Well, the extensiveness of the l-20 scope, our-process of establishing the review structure and _ 21 getting all the information and doing the review. We added: 22 staff-and we have added staff-to'try to cover this based on 23 the schedule. 24 ' CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner-McGaffigan? 4-25 COMMISSIONER-McGAFFIGAN: Just the question'I i )
- ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~ Court Reporters s 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
80 1 asked earlier, It was really the staff's estimate at the 2 last briefing, three months ago, approximately, the ICAVP 3 was guesstimated then to be over in early September. Now it 4 is early October. Was the explanation we got earlier that 5 there was a delay in completing discovery -- 6 MR. SCHOPFER: The September date really was based . 7 on a schedule that did not reflect the separation of the 8 Wave 1 and Wave 2 and 3 system with that being identified 9 later. With the next two systems being identified in July, 10 that added directly onto the end of the schedule. That is 11 the path or the completion. 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 13 MR. SCHOPFER: If we can go on then to the next 14 slide in the presentation, it identifies the scope in more 15 detail of the Tier I review. There have been four systems 16 identified and I have the four in parentheses because four 17 really relates to 15 of the 88 NU maintenance rule systems. 18 There: are not four systems here, there are 15 systems here. 19 Servicewater and the quench spray and 20 recirculation spr3y were'the first two systems chosen and then, two weeks ago, the auxiliary building HVAC system and 21 22 the supplemental leakage collection and release system is . 23 what SLCRS is for. With the last system being the emergency 24 diesel generator and all associated auxiliaries which 25 includes the engine, the generator, the lube oil, the fuel ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
81 1- -oil, the-starting-air. 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: How did you decide on the _3- _ scope, what criteria?-- 4 MR -. SCHOPFER: Which systems? 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes, e 6 MR. SCHOPFER: The systems were chosen,_the first 7 _two systems were chosen by the staff, the NRC staff, and the
.s 8 last systems were chosen by -- at random from a list
- 9. provided by the NRC staff. I'm sorry, by the Nuclear Energy
- 10 -Advisory Council of the State of Connecticut. Those
-- 11 personnel selected ~ those systems from the maintenance rule
'12 Group One and TVo' systems from a list _ of systems provided to-13- from the staff to them. So it was drawn out of a hat, the 14 last two systems.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So there are no specific 16 criteria in terms of scope cn: what it tests or --
- 17 MR.-SCHOPFER: There were criteria established up 18 front as to what kinds of systems should be selected for the 19 Tier I' review'in terms of scope that it' touches.-lots of 201 different areas in the-plant, it has a great cross-section 21 .of interfaces.
22- As you can see.if you.look at these 15 systems, if 23- you break these into individual systems, we have a wide 24 ivariety here in terms of disciplines and types of equipment, 25 -types of commodities installed in the plant so it is a very ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
82 1 broad ranging selection. And there were some specific 2 criteria identified both by us in our audit plan of what we 3 suggest for systems and what the staff ended up_using for 4 that and I am'sure they can address that. 5 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Particularly about the criteria 6 when you come to that. Thanks. 7 MR. SCHOPFER: In addition to the 15 systems that 8 are being reviewed, the scope and the defin.ition of the 9 scope and the boundaries for each of those systems including 10 instrumentation and controls and indirect support systems 11 and electrical interfaces includes then a limited review of 12 some additional 51 systems, meaning that they won't receive 13 the level of review that the 15 are being reviewed to but in 14 fact we touch on those systems to some extent during the 15 review process and the numbers of interfaces with each 16 system are identified here and they are not additive. That 17 number is approximate at this point. I'll try to give you a 18 brief review status on where the review is and where f.he 19 review stands on the tier 1. I have a slide with lots of 20 numbers and what I will say about that is that the items 21 down the left side is basically the steps and the order in 22 which the work has to be done on the tier i review -- , 23 establishing the system boundary definition and knowing what 24 exactly is in the scope of that particular system, obtaining 25 all the documents from NU for that review, screening the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
83 1 findings from NU's configuration management program so that 2 we are not duplicating efforts, identifying the system 3 requirements -- that's the design and licensing basis 4 requirements that these systems are required to meet, doing 5 reviews then of calculations, components, drawings, topical 6 reviews, things such as fire protection, high energy line 7 break and those kinds of things, and then basically 8 dispositioning those system requirements based on the 9 documents that are being reviewed. 10 The population of items under the first two 11 systems, service water and QSS, RSS are shown in those first 12 two columns and where or the status of percent complete of 13 doing those activities is shown in the 'txt two columns. 14 We are basically nearing completion with 15 identifying the requirements and we are in the precess of 16 doing the reviews of the individual calculations components 17 drawing, et cetera, 18 The modification restew is a couple of steps in 19 the process that will be done efter the design basis review. 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: How large is this configuration 21 team that is on-site that is actually going to -- they are 22 the ones -- they are going to be doing -- 23 MR SCHOPFER: There are currently eight people 24 or-site right now. 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And so are they going to be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 1
84 1 involved with the -- when you say component reviews, what 2 does that mean? 3 MR. SCH0PPER: That is a review to see that 4 component meets the requirements in terms of it was 5 purchased to the calculations that matches the calculation 6 requirements and the design requirements for that component. 7 It's more or less of a drawing and specification review. 8 The next slide shows the physical configuration 9 review and that in fact is the scope of the walkdown_ teams. 10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 11 MR. SCH0PFER: That is what we call the CRG and 12 that group, currently eight people on-site -- actually they 13 are at a location just off-site but near the Millstone 14 Station. 15 Their scope is scoping the walkdown drawings, 16 identifying the boundaries, redlining -- meaning making 17 changes to those drawings based on the outstanding changes 18 that exist in the station that haven't been -- but the 19 drawing has not been revised. 20 The rest of the process here -- to compare the 21 physical drawings versus the upper tier drawings and 22 eventually then do the walkdowns. The numbers and the , 23 population are the actual numbers of drawings involved 24 unless otherwise stated there and percent complete. We are 25 on the first two systems. . 10m RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
85 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes, but I notice that you 2 don't have anything on the HVAC and EDG. 3 MR. SCHOPFER: That is correct. We have not -- we 4 have scoping meetings ccheduled for this afternoon and 5 tomorrow with the staff to identify the boundarir-s. 6 This work is in process of getting the . >rmation 7 to do this 1avel of ef fort on the next set of syntetts. 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But yet you feel that by 9 October 14th you are going to be done? 10 MR. SCHOPPER: We are reviewing that schedule. 11 We're looking at resources in order to do that. 12 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay. That was the question, 13 looking at the number of drawing reviews and having done a 14 couple of them in my old life, I am just wondering whether 15 October 14 is a realistic schedule, talking of two months. 16 MR. SCHOPFER: We are reviewing that date and we 17 are looking at resources of what we need to do, and maybe 18 there are limitations in terms of resources, in terms of 19 what you can offectively add, so we are reviewing that as an 20 overall situation and we'will -- 21 COMMISSIONER D1AZ: You are not certain today with 22 the limited resources that you have that you can meet that 23 deadline? 24 MR. SCEOPFER: I am certein that the resources I 25 have on the slicie todoy is probe.bly going to grow. ANN RILEY &.\SSOCIATES, LTD. Court Leporters 1250 I Street, M.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l l 86 1 The next slide is the O&M -- the ORG as we call 2 it, the operations and maintenance and testing review. 3 Without going through it in detail, they have a 4 similar process but their documents that they look at are in 5 fact the operations procedures, the maintenance and testing { 6 and training procedures, to see that the design basis l 7 requirements have in fact been translated into, 8 appropriately into those procedures and that includes some 9 of the witnessing of testing and looking at test records to 10 see if the performance of the systems meets, actually meets 11 the requirements and their modification review at the end of 12 that. 13 The next slide basically shows that the next two 14 systems, the next set of systems, whatever that number is, 15 10 or 11, we are doing the boundary definition. We have 16 meetings scheduled, as I said, for this afternoon and 17 tomorrow to meet with the Staff related to that, and next ' 18 week to present those boundaries to NU in a public forum and 19 document retrieval for those systems is in progress now. 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you really don't have a real 21 assigned completion date for these two systems at this stage 22 of the game? , 23 MR. SCHOPPER: We are working to the date that we 24 have established, but we are reviewing that in terms of the 25 resources necessary to meet that date or if there is a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 . ~ _ _ _ _ , _.._. - _ ___ _ _ _
i 87 1 different date. 2 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: You think that by the end of 3 this week you will have some definition of what you are 4 going to take regarding the auxiliary building, HVAC -- 3 5 MR. SCHOPFER: Probably early next week -- Monday 6 or Tuesday of next week. 7 The next slide shows the tier 2, the accident I 8 review status. 9 We have completed the review of the Chapter 15 10 accident analysis and identified the mitigating systems and 11 components that mitigate the accidents and the critical 12 characteristics that we're going to review associated with 13 those. 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you are tasked with also l 15 reviewing the adequacy of the other FSAR sections with 16 reupect to these accident mitigating SSE? 17 MR. SCHOPFER: We have reviewed the entire Chapter 18 15 accident analysis section and the other chapters, 6 and 19 sections about that also, but in any case, yes, we are 20 looking at that, those sections, for conformance with tech 21 specs and design requirements in the performance of the !, 22 components in those systems that mitigate the concequences 23 of these accidents. 24 Did I answer your question, Chairman Jackson? 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I am not sure, but go on. I'll ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters i 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
88 1 come back. 2 MR. SCHOPFER: We have identified 22 accident 3 mitigation systems noted on the slide. A number of them are 4 shown there. Some of them, two or three of those systems, 1 5 are in fact systems that are in the 15 select systems. ; i 6 We have also identified approximately 150 critical , 7 characteristics on those 22 systems that we are going to 8 review and a breakdown of the types of characteristics are 9 shown there. Again, it is a variety of types of equipment 10 and things that must be verified. 11 The status of that portion of the review, again, 12 we have submitted this list of characteristics and how we 13 are going to review them to the staff and we expect they 14 have looked those over, reviewed those and we expect some 15 comments this week from them about the adequacy of what we 16 have identified in our review process. 17 We are in the process of doing those reviews and 18 if additional guidance from staff results then we will add 19 that to the review. 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Before you go on, let me go 21 back to your associated system critical characteristics. 22 Did you find that these flows and times and actions with , 23 respect to these associated system critical characteristics 24 were explicitly called out and defined in the FSAR? 25 MR. SCHOPFER: Yes. Yes, for example, the flow ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
, Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
89 1 rate to the vessel via, say, safety injection must be so 2 much gal'ons per minute within a certain time period. 3 CHAIMOW JACKSON: And will you be verifying that 4 emergency and abnormal operating procedures have limits that 5 are conservative relative to these flows and times and so 6 forth and actions particularly that are explicitly called 7 out in the FSAR? 8 MR. SCHOPFER: For? We are not doing an extensive 9 operations procedure review on these systems. We are doing 10 that on the 15 selected Tier I systems. I do not believe 11 that we are doing an extensive operations review on those 22 12 or those -- 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Because part of verifying 14 conformance with the design and licensing basis and if you 15 are, you know, reviewing things relative to what is 16 explicitly called out in the FSAR, is in fact reviewing 17 whether, in fact, the procedures are in conformance. And 18 you are saying you are not going to be doing that? 19 MR. SCHOPFER: I am saying we are doing that for 20 all of the Tier I systems and I guess my recollection is 21 that we are not doing that for these Tier II systems. To 22 the extent that a Tier I system is also on this list of Tier 23 II systems, and there are at least three or four in that 24 case, then yes, the answer is yes, we will be looking at all 25 the abnormal operating and the normal operating procedures ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 90 1 on the Tier I systems. . 2- CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, and you feel that isa 3 good thing to do? 4 MR. SCHOPFER: Well, I think if the question is do
- 5 I feel we should be doing that additional step on those 6 systems, there is lots of additional things that can be
- 7 done. We were following basically the scope of what has j 1
8 been laid out now. You can review that with'the staff and ! 9 talk about whether that is something we ought to do in ; l 10 addition. , 11 MR. ERLER: I think a lot depends upon the results i 12 of the Tier I system review. I think we have to complete those 15 systems and as they support the accident mitigation [ 14 and then we can draw some conclusions if more needs to be 15 done. I 16 MR. SCHOPFER: The Tier III, the next slide is the . l 17 Tier III scope and that is again a wider review and for - 18 different types-of things, wider in terms of the number of l y 19_ systems. ! l 20 The four components of the Tier III review is to 21 review the current-configuration, control and design change 22 processes to review the NU implementation of those current- , 23 - change processes,-to review their corrective actions,_end 24 use corrective actions including -- that they have 251 identified through their configuration management program, 1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i Court Reporters. 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005- + (202) 842-0034 rp -1 yww wa%r*- ev m e - w yttw w ,ewy-- # g g www+ws- r-r-v -p-yev-"9'T'TD' 7Y W T 'P-*-+M*'P8iTW-s-T'-p**'dTT""T' T'***T"N9F'T'*TO'#'T'hM'm w? TY I 'W' ""W *'~***9'$'8"*P'4'""P7""* * " "P
I 91 1 including the extended condition, where they have identified 2 the extended condition, the identification of causal factors 3 and root causes for corrective action documents, and the 4 adequacy of their corrective actions that they plan to 5 resolve the issue. So that review is being done. 6 For all of the corrective action documents for the 7 selected -- 15 selected systems and a sample of corrective 8 actions outside those 15 systems will be developed by the 9 staff and will be hasigned to that. 10 - CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me take you back to the 11 previous slide, the accident review status.- You said that 12 your proposed review methodology was submitted to the NRC L13 for approval. When did you do that? 14' MR. SCHOPFER: June 30, I believe. 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: This is on' track relative to 16 the schedule that you have laid out for yourself? 17 MR. SCHOPFER: Yes, it is. 18 And the last bullet on the programmatic, the Tier 19 III review, is the past change reviews and that is a review a 20- of changes made under various programs that were made since 21 the receipt of the operating license at NU. 22 Quickly, the status for the programmatic review on
- 23. the current change processes, we have completed that review 24 of all 11 processes that included 20 procedures and eight 25 chapters of their design control manual and the review ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300. Washington, D.C.-20005 (202) 842-0034 a
~. ...
~ ==
93 1 resulted in eight discrepancy reports being identified. Six 2 of those were issued and two are in progress at this time. 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Hold up a second. You know, 4 there was a -- you know, I had my staff pull up, you know, 5 from your home page some of the, you know, which turned up 6 in your consistency reviews, and I noted that you had a 7 particular one listed for technical specification 8 consistency, and basically the example shown was from the 9 administrative section of the tech spec. Is this the only 10 tech spec consistency issue you've identified to date? 11 MR. SCHOPFER: There is at ? east one other 12 deficiency discrepancy report I think that talks about a 13 tech spec requirement, administrative requirement for one 14 other one besides the one that I think you just mentioned 15 I think there are two that have requirements in the tech 16 specs about administrative processes that we found a 17 discrepancy on. 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And then there was one having 19 to do with the use of later versions of ASME section 11, and 20 so what was NU's response relative to the use of newer 21 codes, and were they inappropriately using a code case or -- 22 MR. SCHOPFER: I don't know the answer to that. , 23 They have responded to those, and I -- it's under review, 24 and I don't know actually what that response is. 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Could you get the answer ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
\
93 1 for me? 2 MR. SCHOPFER: Yes, I will. 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you. 4 MR.-SCHOPFER: The current change process 5 implementation, 11 process impleme.atation checklists have 6 been identified and sent to the NRC for approval. That 7 review will be conducted in parallel with the tier 1 8 modification review. So this-piece of it is scheduled later
.9: on in the process, and the NRC is' currently reviewing those 10 checklists.
11 Programmatic -- excuse me, the corrective action 12 reviews identify just the scope-here of unresolved item 13- reports which were corrective action documents that were 14 under -- resulting from the NU configuration management 15 process. There were 235 UIR's identified on service water 16 and 265 on the QSS RSS. 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And over what time frame were 18 they identified? 19 MR. SCHOPFER: From the initiation of their CMP 20 program, and I'll say that goes-back to last year, February 21 of '96. 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
-23 MR. SCHOPFER: And in addition there are 135 24 condition reports and CR's and ACR's-thatLare-not shown on 25 the slide on these two systems. We have those, and those ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
- - = - =
l 94 1 UIR's and CR's and ACR's are under review now. Additionally 2 we've identified 263 UIR's for the next set of systems, and 3 I don't have the number for the number of CR's and ACR's 4 yet. Getting that information. In addition we will be 5 reviewing the sample of corrective actions outside of the 15 6 Tier I systems, and the NRC staff will identify what those ' 7 numbers and specific items are. In addition we have some 8 previously identified design-related deficiencies that were 9 identified prior to the OL that is in the scope of this part 10 of the review. 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's prior to the operating 12 license. 13 MR. SCHOPFER: Yes. 14 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 15 MR. SCHOPFER: In the past change review there are 16 10 categories of change items included in the scope, things 17 like like-for-like replacements, procedure changes, set 18 point changes, work authorization, a number of other 19 possible change mechanisms that have been available and in 20 use at'NU over the last 10 or 11 years, and we are going to 21 look at a sample of those changes in the last 11 years. We 22 have gotten the lists of all those changes made in those , 23 categories since the operating license date, and selection 24 criteria have been submitted to the staff for them to 25 review, and that number today is eight instead of four. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters-1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
95 1 We've submitted eight of those categories to -- 2 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Dut you intend to review all 3 the categories? 4 MR. SCH0PFER: Yes. 5 CHAIRF9d1 JACKSON: And what are the totals in 6 these lists? Is this in the thousands? 7 MR. SCH0PFER: Yes. 8 The last slide I have is basically a summary of 9 the discrepencies, numbers of discrepancies identified to 10 date. There are six DR's that have been formally issued to 11 NU and the NRC. The number today -- there are actually 24 12 discrepancy reports in process at Sargent & Lundy for a 13 total of 30 identified to date. We have received the 14 resolutions from NU on the first six that were submitted to 15 them, and our review of those resolutions is in process, 16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 17 MR. SCHOPFER: That's all I have to present. If 18 there are any questions, any additional questions -- 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I note that you have a web 20 site, and it contains, you know, discrepancy reports we've 21 been talking about, and their resolution, so do you plan on 22 putting NU responses to the discrepancies -- 23 MR. SCH0PFER:- Yes, we do. 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: On line. 25 MR. SCHOPFER: And our review acceptance, our ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
96 1 comments on their resolutions. Yes. 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 3 All right, we're going to hear from Parsons, are 4 we? 5- MR. CURRY: Good morning, Chairman. 6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good morning.
.7 MR. CURRY: On behalf of Parsons, I would like to t
8 - thank each one of you, Chairman, Commissioner McGaffigan and i 9 - Commissioner Diaz for the opportunity to be here. Since the ) 10 Sargent and-Lundy team has_overviewed the essential aspects l
\
11 of the program that both of us are working to, I am going to 12 give a status of our work and realizing that, of course, ' 13 from a schedule standpoint they are about two months ahead 14 of us. 15 I have broken down our presentation into three 16 areas. First, I would like to review our particular team 17_ and the way we are organized and give you an early status of 18 our Tier I, II and III activities and the processes that we 19 will be utilizing in those particular areas and also a 20 status'of the support activities. 21 On the next slide, you will see'the ICAVP team. 22 Mycelf, as the project director,'and Mr. Blocher as the . 23 deputy, who-is responsible for the technical 1 adequacy of our 24 work.- Similarly, weLare organized with the tier _ teams and
~
25- - also a regulatory review group, as_well as a technical f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters
- 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite:300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202).842-0034 cr- y~ wa--m-wg+ys : e y +s y+-p-- w g- V-w-*re+9-'+-gewre-T-?'ym-y q-+ymi'v-- v+ wye -gy m4r&
- s N w te-uye-mrq*7~-'*
97 1 advisory group, to oversee -- their internal review group 2 would be their actions. 3 Right now, we have 73 technical people assigned to 4 this project. There are additional project controls and i 5 certainly document control personnel, as you have heard from 6 the previous discussions. Gathering data is key to be able 7 to perform these evaluations. 8 The numbers that you see outside of those 9 particular large boxes are the people assigned in each area. ; 10 I am very pleased about the qualifications of the ; 11 team that we can bring forward. As we have identified here, 12 19 masters' degrees, eight PhDs, 27 professional engineers 13 and 10 people from the operations areas, with reactor 14 operators or senior operation qualifications. The team is f 15 very experienced at 30 years on an average. Each team 16 member, of course, has been interviewed by the staf f and not 17 only for their technical adequacy but also for their 18 independence from Northeast Utilities. Those conflict of 19 interest statements are available and on file with the 20 staff. 21 Our Tier I status, of course, is -- we are just 22 beginning. It was last week that we formalized with the 23 Northeast Utilities the actual boundaries for the first two 24 Tier I systems that we will be inspecting. Those two 25 systems have been selected. They are the high-pressure ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)-842-0034
P i 98 1 safety injection with the refueling water storage tank added 2 into that system as well as the auxiliary feedwater added in 3 with the condensate storage tank. t 4 Our boundary system process identified all the 5 interface systems and interface points to those selected 6 systems and I will detail those on a later slide. In
- 7 accordance with our audit plan, we have a system review work 8 book that includes 10 checklists for each of the key 9 configuration management areas and we utilize that as we 10 inspect each system.
11 This slide shows the breadth of the Tier I 12 inspection and, based upon the questions I have heard today, 13 clearly I think SS&L has indicated this is an extremely 14 broad and deep inspection that is being done. When you look 15 at the systems that are selected, we will be looking at them 16 in their entirety and all those systems that interface. As 17 I have indicated here in the slide, for auxiliary feedwater, 18 we have identified 12 interfacing systems that we will be 19 looking at which indicate 101 interface points. 20 on the slide, I have indicated 45 modifications 21 and those are 45 major modification packages that had to do 22 with the auxiliary feedwater system specifically. The , 23 reason I am not yet complete with that, I have to look at 24 those interfacing systems and see how many modifications 25 would be applicable to the particular auxiliary feedwater ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. , Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l l 99 1 interfaces. 2 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Actually, I should have asked 3 this when Sargent and Lundy was talking. I note that you 4 don't call out any specific' focus on the electrical, in the 5 electrical area other than the emergency diesel generators 6 and in the INC area-generally. Can you say anything 7 about -- was that on the list of these items, additional 8 items where you -- this random relection was made? 9 MR. SCHOPFER: The scope of the review for the 10 second set of systems includes the 4160 volt supply system 11 which-is a large chunk of the electrical system. However, 12 in addition, the boundary definition for all of the Tier I 13 systems includes the electrical supply to all of the 14 components back to1the first motor control center, the first 15 primary source equipment. And then a load path review 16 meaning not the full detail from that motor control center 17 backwards-all the way to the diesel generator. 18 So it includes an extensive amount-of electrical 19 review with each of the Tier I systems. In addition, the 20 I&C portion of the instrumentation and control interface has 21 -been defined to include all of the interfacing signals
, 22 from -- that go to or come from a selected system. For 23 example, if reactor protection-signals or containment 24 depressurization and those kinds of things affect a 25 component-in the selected system, we will review that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 7
100 1 interfacing system and that I&C so it is a -- that I&C component from a full design basis standpoint. So it is an 2 3 extensive I&C and electrical-review and I did not mention > 4 that. 5 MR. CURRY: Similarly, the similar structural 6 attributes of the system will come in under review. . 7 In that particular area if you look at the pipe 8 calculations, efforts required, there are 12 stress analysis 9 packages we have already identified within the base system 10 of auxiliary feedwater and the number there of 217 pipe 11- support calculations to be reviewed. 12 The regulatory documents specific to the auxiliary 13 feedwater system, SERs, license amendments, generic letters, 14 bulletins, in addition to 45 more generic ones that would 15 apply across.many systems, MOVs is an example, have been 16 reviewed and~we will be taking that review as far as the , 17 implementation of those requirements. 18 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: So you have completed your 19 system walkdowns at this time? 20 MR. CURRY: No, ma'am, I have not completed my i - 21 system walkdowns. We have started those but we are not yet l 22 complete, . 23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 24 MR. CURRY: As you will see, I have also included 25 for the high-pressure safety injection system e. similar type ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,.D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
101 1 of data. 2 Our Tier I status, NNECo indicated they would be 3 ready for us to start the first portion of the group one 4 systems on the 30th of June. Our second system was selected 5 on the eighth of July and we met with staff on the 21st to 6 identify the boundaries for the first two systems. 7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So you anticipate going beyond 0 8 these two systems? 9 MR. CURRY: Yes, Chairman Jackson, we do. We 10 expect, similar to the process being used on Unit 3, that
-11 there will be two more, as e minimum, two mare systems 12 selected.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 14 MR. CURRY: We initiated our Tier I system reviews 15 on the 21st of July. As I mentioned last Wednesday, on the 16 30th, we identified that to the Northeast Utilities in a 17 public meeting and our current schedule, which is under 18 review, indicates that we would complete that by the 15th of 19 September. ' 20 Tier II is also an extensive review as has been 21 pointed out. In our particular case, we are required to
, 22 review all of the FSAR Chapter 14 analysis, look at the 23 seven major event categories which break down to 29 24 individual events. And the extent of that from our reviews, 25 currently we have been able to identify 45 systems of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
102 1 maintenance rule systems that will be affected. We 2 currently have only been able to exclude seven cf those 3 systems and the others are currently under review. As you 4 can see my approximate number there, we could well reach 56 5 systems that we would be looking at under the accident 6 mitigation portion of this. 7 We have identified as a minimum 20 -- excuse me, 8 300 unique components. And I mean as unique, two auxiliary 9 feedwater pumps. By definition, an auxiliary feedwater pump 10 is a unique component and I am not double counting for 11 redundancy. The purpose of this particular process, of 12 course, is to verify for active components the critical 13 design characteristics that must be met to support the 14 accident analycia and Chapter 14. In our approach we used a 15 checklist that identifies the critical design 16 characteristics for a review based upon our process that 17 uses the system boundary diagrams for the major component 18 functions and the system functional diagrams that relate 19 component function to design basis events. 20 So from the CDCs we go to the major component 21 functions and the importance of that function and its 22 associated characteristics to the design basis events back . 23 to the Chapter 14 analysis. 24 We must, according to the scope of our inspection, 25 identify and submit to the Staff the critical design ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l i 103 i
; 1 characteristics for review. We have chosen to break that 2 down into three different areas.
3 The first two areas would cover the majority of 4 the Group 1 systems and we submitted on 18 July the five 5 overcooling events. Today we have delivered six additional 6 events that cover the reactor coolant pressure boundary ! 7 events. 4 8 By the date of the 25th of August we expect to be 1 9 able to complete our submittal, the CVCs for the Staff 10 review. 11 Our tier 3, currently we have submitted our sample 12 and identified that and submitted it to the Staff fc; their 13 review. Our scope, slightly different, is to assess the 14 adequacy of the CMP to identify and correct past changes to 15 the process configuration management looking for 16 deficiencies. 17 We have assigned the 10 changed processes into 18 four functional groups, and I have identified the four 19 functional groups of engineering, information and records 20 management, parts procurement / supply, and operations and 22 maintenance -- again paralleling very much what you heard
, 22 from Sargent and Lundy.
23 Our tier 3 status, our process is really broken 24 into two phases as it relates to NNECos, the CMP completion 25 schedule. ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
104 1 We submitted the sample for NRC approval. We 2 expect to complete by the 8th our request for prime unmple 3 documents and based upon receipt of that information we 4 expect the schedule -- we'll be able to complete the Phase 1 ; 5 portion of tier 3 by the 15th of September. Congruent with 6 Northeast completing their CMP discovery on all systems we
- 7 expect on that same date to be able to put out our request 8 for the second phase of our sample documents.
9 I would like to discuss just a little bit some of I 10 those other support type activities. As soon as we were 11 notified that Northeast Utilities was ready we posted our 12 website the public would have access in a similar manner as 13 has been discussed previously and that went up on the lot of 14 July. 15 We also have an office in a different location 16 from Sargent & Lundy near the site. Our team has been 17 trained, badged, and has started conducting their walk-18 downs, 19 Information is really key. As I have indicated on 20 the sli'de, 179 requests issued -- 152 completed. THis is an i area where we are being very aggressive. Today we have 22 people looking at proprietary analysis that had been done Ly , 23 Siemens Corporation so that we can bring those back into our 24 offices to do detailed reviews as they relate to the 25 accident and mitigation. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
105 1 We also have a team on-site from our tier S that 2 are selecting the sample documents that we will want*mo 3 review in our corporate offices. ! 4 Early on though we have identified three 5 discrepancies. These are primarily in the procedural 6 inconsistency area and they would be at significance level 7 4 -- those three discrepancies will be posted this morning l 8 in accordance with the audit plan procedures. 9 Our website, again to provide the public with the ! 10- opportunity to see and have access to the information as l 11 this project goes ahead, hopefully the address will be noted
- 12 by all. It is set up in a similar manner -- seven pages 13 providing all the prime and backup information for all the i
14 organizations involved -- Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 15 Northeast Utilities, our own organization as well as 16 Connecticut's HEAC organization.
- 17 We'll also post as a backup method to the NRC any I
18 meetings involving ourselves and then any meeting summaries 19 not posted by -- not transcribed by the Nuclear Regulatory 20 Commission. 21 Our discrepancy report index and the text and the , , 22 responses that will come back from Northeast will be posted 23 as well as, as the project progresses, the final reports 24 indexed and the text provided. 25 We are kind of early-on. If I can answer any 2 i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 1 Street,'N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
1 l I 106 1 questions? j 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz? l 3 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Just a quick nomenclature i 4 question. Does your Chapter 14, Unit 2 correspond to ! i 5 Chapter 15 and Unit 3? l 6 MR. CURRY: Yes, sir. . 7 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Just to keep the Commissioners l 5 8 confused. 9 [ Laughter.) l 1 10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It's a plot. Commissioner 11 McGaffigan? 12 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: No questions. i 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, thank you, gentlemen. i 14 We will now hear from Little Harbor Consultants. 15 Good morning, f
- 16 MR. BECK: Good morning, Chairman Jackson,
- 17 Commissioners. l 18' CHAIRMAN JACKSONi If you could introduce those -- l 19 MR. BECK: I certainly will. I'm John Beck, ,
20 president of Little Harbor Consultants _and team manager for 21- the Little Harbor oversight activities at Millstone, and , 22 with me at the table this_ morning are John Griffin, who is , deputy team manager for the effort, and Billy Garde, a - 24 _ member of-the team who is primarily responsible for the ECP _
- l. i 25 .-implementation review which I'll_be-discussing in some 4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters ' 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
. . Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 r--- v.--r-e r- - - w,, e m .e--,~ ,ww-., , - - - r---,r- .-n .r--, sm-- , w w w w ., w ww.,,ww.r--w w , , e t, ww v, ,-----re r+-w+,~.-e, -, w w w i-w, i.e, --e,,,+w=-...---i+>. y
107 1 detail a little later this morning. 2 We're pleased to have this opportunity to address 3 the Commission regarding the results of our oversight 4 activities to date. We have provided the Commission a 5 briefing book which contains the information provided to the 6 NRC staff and the company management during public meetings 7 on May 13, June 3 and July 22nd of this year. 8 We obviously don't have sufficient time to cover 9 all the material; thus, we'll provide a summary of our 10 current assessment of the safety conscious work environment 11 at Millstone and our evaluation of the employee concerns 12 program implementation. We will also be pleased to respond 13 to any questions you may have regarding the material we 14 provided earlier. 13 On July 22nd, we reported to the NRC staff and to 16 company management the results of our structured interviews 17 with 239 members of the Millstone work force. These 18 interviews were conducted between June 16 and July 10, and 19 those interviewed were 207 Northeast employees and 32 20 contractor employees at the site, and included 21 representatives from essentially every work group at the
, 22 Millstone Station.
23 While we selected those to be interviewed, the 24 interviews were voluntary, non-attributive and conducted in 25 a confidential setting. We explained the purpose of our IdR1 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 , 1 l 1
108 2 oversight role to those being interviewed and the purpose of I 2 the_ interviews themselves and used a questionnaire developed j 3 specifically for the Millstone environment. Where tho ; 4 subject matter was appropriate, we asked the interviewees to 5 rate attributes on a scale of 1 to 5, and also asked them to I 6 compare their current feelings or attitudes about an issue
- 7 with how they felt about the same issue a year ago. ;
~
- 8. CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So how big a sample size did ,
9 you say you had? r 10 MR. BECK: 239 total, 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 12 MR.--BECK: In_ general, we found an improving 13 environment. While the average numbers, and they were i 14 talked about earlier,. reflected positive changes in 15 essentially every instance, we did caution management that 16 averages don't tell the whole story. For example, 17: significant standard deviations had some rather large spread 18 in some -instances, . indicating that not everyone was 'as : 19 -positive about-the particular matter covered as the-average 20 would indicate. 21 Our first slide summarizes what we found 22- concerning the willingness of the work _ force to raise' safety , 23 concerns in today's environment. 'We found, for example, l . t 24- that management's expectation for_ raising concerns has been
~
25 clearly and effectively communicated to the work force. l l ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters ! 1250 I-Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20005 L (202) 842-0034 L
I s 1 109 1 l 1 Ninety-four percent of those interviewed responded that if 2 they had a safety concern, they knew they were expected to 3 raise that cencern. 4 Also when asked, 100 percent of those interviewed 5 that if they were aware of a nuclear safety concern, they 6 would raise that concern via one of the available options, 7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So no one said no, and this is 8 out of -- 9 MR. BECK: No one said no. We did have -- 10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Excuse me. This is out of your 11 sample of 239? 12 MR. BECK: That's correct. There were no negative 13 responses. 14 CRAIMUW JACKSON: Tell me what the distribution 15 in terms of worker categories were represented in your 16 sample. 17 MR. BECK: We took a very careful lock at the 18 organization and selected those to be interviewed in a 19 horizontal, evenly distributed fashion, and vertically, we 20 got into management structure, supervisory level, and 21 workers on representative basis given how many individuals
. 22 there were in each one of those groups. So we have a good 23 sampling of the_ entire organization, top to bottom and ono 24 side to the other.
25 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
110 1 NR. BECKt We think that the responses with regard 2 to the 100 percent positive response on raising a safety 3 issue says a lot about the current state of people's 4 attitudes of raising safety concerns at the site today. 5 We also determined that those interviewed had 6 greater confidence today that a safety concern once raised 7 would be resolved. This particular slide shows the l 8 increased level of confidence from a year ago. 9 We asked questions also about raising any concern, ; 10 not just nuclear safety concerns, including issues of 11 personal matters, human resources, management concerns, and 12 while most people indicated an improved environment for 13 raising any concerns, there were approximately 50 14 individuals who expressed some level of discomfort in 15 raising other types of concerns, and obviously there's room 16 for improvement in this particular area. Many of the issues 17 dealt with if it involveu peers, tattling on a peer, for 18 example, if something weren't quite right, or anything that 19 would involve personal embarrassment, things of that type, 20 got -- 21 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Is there clarity as to, you I l 22 know -- I mean, is there a low threshold for what a safety . I 23 concera is? Is there clarity in people's minds as to what 24 constitutes a safety concern? 25 MR. BECK: In general, I think they have a very ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W , Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 842-0034
111 good understanding of what may be a safety concer, and no 1 2 reluctance to raise it if they think it is. 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 4 MR. BECK: During interviews, we als; asked 5 questions intended to gather data on how the work force 6 feels about various attributes of a safety conscious work ! 7 environment. As you can see, there has been an improvement 8 in the questioning attitude of the work force, for example. 9 You can also see that self-assessment efforts have 10 not been totally effective. In fact, -- 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What do the numbers mean when 12 you say 48 percent yes and 52 percent no? 13 MR. BECK: Forty-eight percent of those 14 interviewed were able to identify substantive change that 15 had resulte. : hyn self-assessment activities. We would 16 expect to see anat number higher once the self-assessment 17 program at the site gains further momentum. 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So it's a perception as to the i 19 value of self-assessment? 20 MR. BECK: Yes. That's correct. 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And so 52 percent felt that 22 self-assessment has had no effect. 23 MR. BECK: Had no discernible impact in their 24 particular work area to date. 25 There has also been a substantial improvement in ANN RILEY & kSSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
113 1 the perception of chilling effect, or, to be more exact, the 2 lack of chilling effect today at Millstone. A value of 1 in 3 this case means a total lack of chilling effect as perceived 4 by those interviewed. The average of 1.8 today indicates a 5 significant improvement in the opinion of those interviewed 6 with respect to how they felt over a year ago. But as we 7 also pointed out to management, there are still pockets at 8 the station where some chilling effect continues to persist. 9 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you believe there's a 10 relationship between a disciplinary action for performance 11 and a chilling effect relative to raising safety concerns? li MR. BECK: There could be. 1< CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And do you have an opinion as 14 to how that can be addressed so that -- you know, not 15 getting into any issues with respect to any particular case, 16 but do you have any thoughts about that? 17 MR. BECK: I think it's very important that 18 management clearly explain the details associated with 19 disciplinary action, why it was taken, how it's being 20 implemented, how it's specifically directed toward a 21 particular set of circumstances and does not have an adverse 22 impact on other people. . 23 I would like to ask Billie to comment on that 24 question as well. 25 MS. GARDE: I think in any situation like that, it ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters . 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
113 1 is also very important that if the issue of retaliation is 2 raised in connection with a disciplinary action, that people 3 take a step back from that and go back to the same incident 4 and event that was reviewed and look at it again from a 5 different perspective. I think when that issue of 6 retaliation is raised, an incident deserves a second scrub 7 to look more at the background and the motives and that the 8 work force needs to clearly understand that that second 9 -scrub was done and then have the reinforcements given that 10 this particular event should not in any way detract people 11 from raising -- excuse me, raising concerns. If there is
- 12 still a fear, then that work group is going to need some 4
13 extra effort to help get over that incident, i 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 15 MR. BECK: We also asked questions about the level i 16 of confidence in the employee concerns program and while 17 there has been an improvement as evidenced by the top graph 18 of this slide, 8 percent _of those interviewed indicated they 19 would not use the employee concerns program. Their reasons 20 ranged from a lack of trust in the program to a belief that 21 the employee concerns program did not have the authority 22 necessary to obtain resolution. 23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Is this a change from last year 24 in the number? 25 MR. BECK: I.1 that particular case, it is. It is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
_ . . . ~ . . . _ .._ _ _ _ _ _. .m. . . _ .. . _ .. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _.. _ .. _ _m. ._ 114 1 a change. I' don't have the specific numbers with me right l .L !- 2 . now. 3 The next segment is going to address our findings 4 with regard to-the employee concerns program and its 5 implementation. 61 The company's' comprehensive plan which was - 7 submitted in response to the NRC order of October 24, ' 96, 8 committed to an extensive revision in their employee 9 concerns program at Millstone. And, for the past several 10 months, we have been monitoring the comprehensive plan and, 11 in particular, the implamentation of the new employee I 12_ concerns program.
.13 They have made major improvements in this area.
! 14 The company has made available the resources and-the i c 15 facilities necessary-to implement,the program. They have 16 developed a new program manual which we considered to be an t -17 excellent document. They-have also brought in experienced , 18 contract help to support program implementation and to
-19 mentor the company employees associated with the employee 20 concerns-program. These improvements'are a significant
~
21 advancement from the earlier program. However, our review 22 of the-implementation identified a number of deficiencies
- 23 that must be corrected before this-program will be fully 24 effective and earn the. trust, full trust of the work force, f -25 While-they have indicated that sufficient - -
4 I
; _. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
- - - -,-,,,m,. - - , . - , ,
115 1 dedicated, rather,' sufficient resources to the program,'not 2 all th3 employees in the ECP program have been; qualified or 3 trained to perform the necessary functions expected in an 4 effective program. Our review of program activities such as 5 intake and investigation reveal that work activities were 6- not being performed in accordance with the new program 7' manual. One disturbing finding was that discussion with 9 . workers who had used the ECP indicated that 37 percent would 10 not use the program again. Most of that dissatisfaction was 1 11 based on the belief that the employee concerns program did ! 12 not have the independent authority to resolve issues. 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So how does this square with- l 14 your earlier findings? Is it that the employee concerns 15 program first of all doesn't relate to a safety-conscious 16 work environment since you expressed, you know, satisfaction 17 on the part of people with respect to raising safety
=18 concerns and then a year ago there seemed to be improvement-19 in terms of the confidence that the employee concerns 20~ program would result--in. resolution and I am a little bit 12 1 confused because you had high numbers of individuals .vdio .
1
, 22 said they found no reason not to use the employee concerns 23 program.
24 Was that comprised-of individuals who had not used 25 it before? ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,.LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) .842-0034
i
-116
-MR. BECK: In the main, yes, and that is the reason for the apparent discrepancy. In this particular
~
2 3 case with the 37 percent, this is a subset of people who t 4 have used the program and who were interviewed separately. 1 5 from the structured interview process. , 1 6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And have you culled out of the .. 7 37 percent who expressed dissatisfaction, have you been able 8 to delineate.what the sources of their dissatisfaction-are? 9 MR. BECK: Billie, would you? 10 MS GARDE: Yes. 11 We_ contacted individuals. Obviously, some of the 12 concerns were anonymous but we contacted as many individuals i 13 as we could who.had used the program and whose files were 14 resolved or closed and then interviewed those individuals 15: about their satisfaction with the program and from that, 16 including whether or not they would use it again,-.we came up 4 - 17 with the 37 percent would not use the ECP again. , - 18 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: What I am trying to say is i 19 that, out of that 37 percent, have you been able to identify l 20 what the clear factors and concerns are?
- 21. MS. GARDE: Yes, we did.
d 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And you have fed this back-into 23 the process somehow? 12 4 MS. GARDE: We have not fed'it back into the - process with that level of detail. You know, two people 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
117 2 1 said they wouldn't use it because of this reason or five 2 people because of this reason. But we certainly gave 3 generically the feedback. And, as I think Mr. Beck said, 4 the majority of it, I think all but a very few people, would 5 not go back because they were not satisfied with ECP's 6 reliance on either human resources or line management's 7 resolution of their concern. 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz, you had a 9 question? 10 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: With respect to tracking of 11 this program with the expected plant startup or completion 12 of work, I am concerned that this first two bullets in here,
- 13 staff qualification process, has not been completed. It 14 doesn't say how much of it has been completed, and staff 15 training is not yet implemented. How are you on track or 16 not on track for having this portion of training completed 17 prior to startup?
18 MR. BECK: Our understanding of management's 19 reaction to this finding is that they have embraced the 20 findings and they are working diligently to correct every 21 one of the deficiencies that we have pointed out to them. 22 Their particular emphasis on that area is apparent 23 to us since July 22 when we made our public report and we 24 are going to watch very carefully. I have expectations that 25 they are going to address every one of those issues as ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
118 1- rapidly as-they possibly can.and there is no reason why they 2 can't be-corrected in relatively short order once the focus i 3 and the attention'is given to-it, 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think that the employees' 5 ' concerns program and the progress with respect to it and 6 what you are doing in that regard needs to have some 7 tracking relative to the overall schedule that the staff, 8 our staff, you and Northeast Utilities, should not expect to 9 come in here with solely a focus on the technical issues and 10 not have had some substantive progress and verified progress 11 in this area and asked the Commission to make a' decision 12 . because, in fact, there are two--confirmatory orders on 13 Northeast Utilities relative to their startup and one has to , 14 do with the corrective action program. The other has to do
. 15 with employee concerns.
16 So all I have heard today has to do in terms of
'17 the numbers and the-data and the progress is strictly on the 18 technical issues and so I just-have you bear in mind'that:
19 there are'two_ sets of problems here, both of which need
- 20' ' resolution in measurable ways.
21 MR. BECKi 'Another issue that we' looked at was 4 22 nuclear safety concerns, and retaliation issues not-being , 23 properly prioritized during the intake process, and also the 24 database currently used-by the Employee Concerns Program to 25 . track concerns did not provide meaningful information to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 m, - - . . , y 7 7-.,, , , - ,w.-, .-.o3g , , - g+v r- -,p.
119 1 management. 2 Our review and monitoring of ongoing concerns 3 identified that management does not always recognize the 4 presence of a hostile working environment or actions that 5 create a chilling effect. 6 Our review of over 90 Employee Concerns files 7 determined that many of them contained insufficient 8 documentation. The lack of documentation made it difficult 9 to determine if the resolution was thorough and responsive. 10 Files completed under the new Employee Concerns Program have 11 not shown any measurable improvement over older ones. Our 12 review also identified that intake and investigation of 13 concerns are often performed inconsistently and in some case 14 have been improperly classified as resolved or closed. 15 The last item on this slide will be the subject of 16 some focused activity on our part over the next few months. 17 As you can see, 53 percent of all open Employee Concerns at 18 Millstone contain complaints of retaliation. While this is 19 a disturbing statistic, it should be noted that we have not 20 validated these concerns. We intend to perform a 100 21 percent review of all current cases of alleged retaliation 22 and will be prepared to discuss our findings at future 23 meetings. 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, well let me just say the 25 following. I mean -- and I am 9ning to play Commissioner ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
120 1 Diaz here because you have laid out-a number of specific 2 deficienciese Staff qualification process has not been 3 completed; staff training is not implemented; there is a 4 lack of compliance with the manual requirements that the 5- intake process is not properly prioritized, prioritizing 6 -safety concerns; the database lacks data -- et cetera. r 7 It seems to me these are very specific items that 8 it is possible to measure progress with respect to, and it 9 seems to me that as the-consultants charged with this area 10 that you ought to be able to bring forward to us some 11 progress in that regard, 12 Secondly, the NRC Staff'needs to understand that 13 you need to be tracking progress with respect to -- you have 14 to agree that these'are the items that ought to be dealt 15 with and there has tx) be progress relative to them. 16 Northeast Utilities has to understand that we 17 don't just want you coming:in here checking off auxiliary. 18 feed systems. 1They are very important obviously, but you 19 need-to have'here-and show measurable progress with respect
-20 to these, because I remind you, you are under two 21' -- confirmatory orders,.not one.
22 MR.-GRIFFIN: Chairman, if I can respond to that ,_ 23 just briefly, we believe that these attributes associated 24 with the Employee Concern Program are extremely important to 25 be corrected. These were just-identified by us and to the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite-300 Washington,-D.C. 20005 l' (202) 842-0034
121 1 company on the 22nd of July, so -- l l 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No, no -- all I am trying to 3 say to you is people are just now identifying things on the 4 various physical systems in the plant and I am just saying I 5 have seen'nothing in terms of the schedules that say that 6 there is any tracking of these issues and any closure on any 7 of these deficiencies and any weighting that you are giving 8 to them for closure from anybody's presentations today and I 9 am saying to you that that needs to be done -- 10 MR. GRIFFIN: We understand. 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- with equal rigor, equal 12 focus, and equal folding into the schedule. 13 MR. GRIFFIN: We absolutely agree with your 14 comment. 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, but I am saying you have 16 a job relative to get -- fleshing this out and giving some 17 structure to it. 18 MR. GRIFFIN: I understand. 19 MR. BECK: We understand. 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. 21 MR. BECK: Let me say that we believe the safety-22 conscious work environment is improving in spite of these 23 criticisms of the ECP Program and that management at the 24 same time still has a considerable challenge ahead of them 25 to maintain the momentum that they have been able to get to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
122 1:- date. c 2- :They have to identify any remaining managers or
-3 supervisors who are contributing to an unacceptable working 4 environment at-Millstone and either change behavior or 5 change' people. We believe that between our interview
- 6. results and the various' surveys conducted by management that 7: they have' sufficient information to deal with this issue and 8 we'll closely monitor their actions.
9 Recent events surrounding-disciplinary actions 10 taken at Millstone are also cause for our increased : 11 scrutiny. We have been contacted by several members of the 12- workforce concerning this event and its impact on the work 13 environment and we are scrutinizing very carefully the 14 circumstances involved in that event, how the company reacts , 15 to these concerns and the resultingrimpact on the workforce. 16 . We believe management also has a considerable 17 . amount of work aheadLof:them to correct the deficiencies in
~ 18 ' the Employee Concerns. Program, as we_have touched on this 19-. morning.
20 We have been impressed with the dedication of the 21f Employee Concerns' Program workforce, both company employees
- 22- .and contractors, and with their desire to do the right ,
23L thing. We believe with proper leadership and management 24 thati they can have an outstanding Employee-Concerns Program. 25 That concludes our presentation. We appreciate ANN RILEY1& ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250.I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 ]
-) 1
123 1 the opportunity to brief you and want to personally assure 2 you that we take our role in this project very seriously. 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Again, all I am saying 4- is one needs te have a structured process, a structured 5 scheduled, a structured set of activities that ought to be 6 identified as being important and should be worked in the 7 way that everything else is worked. O 8 We can't go around this mountain again and we have 9 got to come around this mountain before we make a judgment 10 that these plants are ready to start. 11 That is what you have been brought in to do and 12 the management here, you know, I'll always say it is as it 13 does -- that is, you know, Employee Concerns Program is as 14 the Employee Concerns Program does, and so if you don't got 15 some structure and order on it and you come along and there 16 still appear to be these problems, you are putting the 17 Commission in a difficult position relative to the judgment 18 we have to make. Okay? 19 MR. GRIFFIN: Thank you. 20 MS. GARDE: Thank you. 21 MR. BECK: Thank you. 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let's hear from the NRC Staff. 23 Mr. Callan? 24 MR. CALLAN: Chairman, we have about a 20-minute 25 presentation that's 20 minutes without questions, so it's -- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
124 1- -[ Laughter.] 2- CHAIRMAN JACKSON:- Is this a message to us?
- 3 MR. CALLAN: But we've been keeping book of the-4 various questions that you've directed our way this morning 5- that you'd like to have us address,-so we're prepared to 6 address _those questions at.the beginning, if_you like, or we 7 ~can pick them up as we go through the presentation, 8 whichever you prefer.-
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Whatever you think is the most' ' 10 efficient. 11 DR. TRAVERS: In that case, good afternoon, I'm 12 Bill Travers, and I'm the director of special projects, and i 13 with me at the table besides Joe Callan, the executive 14 director, is Phil McKee, our deputy director for licensing; l 15 ' Gene Imbro, deputy director for ICAVP oversight; and Wayne 16 Lanning, deputy director for inspections. l
'17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'm going to have to step out
- 18- for about five minutes. I'm going to leave it;in
! .19 Commissioner Diaz' hands. 20 DR. TRAVERS: Then I won't answer your questions, ! 121- right? l 22 [ Laughter.] , i 23 Or maybe this is a good time. 24- COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Just go slow. 25 [ Laughter.) i i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 _(202) 842-0034 l . - . _ . - - -_ .. . -. ..
125 1 LDR. TRAVERS: Okay. As an overview to my 2 presentation today, what I'd like to do is_ fill the 3 Commission in,-provide'a' status report on the status of NRC 4 activities, principally very much as we have done-in past 5 quarterly meetings.with the Commission, and I plan to cover 6 the topics that are listed here, starting with our restart 7 ~ assessment plan and so forth. 8 Let me just go forward with this and start with 9 restart assessment plan, indicating that as you know we are 10- using NRC's manual chapter 0350 as the vehicle, the: 11 mechanism really for-establishing our program for evaluating 12 a licensee's progress and making an ultimate recommendation 13 to the Commission on possible restart for any of the three: 14 units. 15 Within that guidance the staff has issued. restart 16 assessment plans for each of the three units, and those 17 restart assessment plans-identify key issues, which I've 18 identified on this slide, which we think are particularly 19 relevant and certainly need to be resolved prior to our 20~ coming before the Commission with a restart recommendation. 21 Today I plan to address four of these items and 22- I've indicated the ones I' plan to address with that-funny-23 Jooking -- 2
.4- COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay, again,_when you put all-25 of these items, we have a way of tracking each one of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
~~ . - - . . - .. - . - - . . - . - - - . . . - - - - - - - . - ~ _ - . - - -
l 1 l 126 ' b l
-1 them----
2 DR. TRAVERS: Yes. -i a . j (3 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Not,only independently but l-P 4 -together as far as time? 3 5 DR. TRAVERS: Yes, we do within the restart , e -
~
l 6 . assessment plan itself. More recently, however, we've l '7 provided the Commission-with a summary status report that 8 touches on each one of'these elements and-provides you not 4 l 9 only what the issue is-but a status of our view of what the -i ! 10 licensee's actions are, what NRC. actions are, and our view p i
-11 of the status of each of-these issues.
12- MR. CALLAN: Is that true'as well in the context 13 of the Chairman's last issue-about tracking progress through l j 14 the-discrepancies identified in the employee concerns L 15 -program? I 16' DR. TRAVERS: We certainly have included in the [ -17 Commission paper a discussion of employee-safety concern I 18' program itssues. It's rather summary and-it's:a rather [ 19 overview-I think of the' issues that will ultimately.need to 7 2 04 be discussed withithe Co'm mission, but'I think it does l 21 provide.the framework for that discussion.
-221 BeforeJI-get into'a discussion of the four ,
, 23 elements that I'd like to highlight, and certainly respond i: : 24' .to any questions.you have in any other areas, I'd like.to - fr . -25 make mention of.the' fact-that we are continuing in our-4:I 4 i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
127 1 commitment to carry out our programs very openly and with a 2 great access to the public. In particular we continue to 3 have most -- certainly not all, but most of our working 4 meetings, the meetings between Northeast and the staff or 5 the meetings among the contractors and the staff and 6 Northeast up in the area of Millstone and observable by the 7 public. We are continuing to have meetings specifically 8 with the public in the evening on a schedule of 9 approximately every six to eight week. We continue -- 10 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Are those meetings -- have you 11 seen a change in the attitude of the public that they are 12 now being better informed and that, you know, they have 13 access to reasonable information and is that contributing to 14 somehow calm the waters? 15 DR. TRAVERS: I'd say there is still quite a lot 16 of concern on the part of people who attend the meetings 17 that we hold. We continue to get a lot of questions about 18 the status of our program, the status of the licensee's 19 program. Our goal, though, is the one you mention, and it 20 is-in fact to provide as much information as we reasonably 21 can to explain ourselves and our programs to the people in 22 the area, and we've been doing that, and we've also, 23 frankly, I think been responsive in a number of areas to 24 recommendations, and suggestions that the public has made. 25 They may not think we've been as responsive as we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
128 , 1-- should be, but I'll give you just.one example, if I may. We 2 got a recommendation at a recent public-meeting that 3 suggested that in' addition to these deficiency reports that 4 are being put on the Net, these are deficiency reports that 5 the contractor has validated, that the public would be 6J interested in not-just seeing the ones that were validated, -
;7 but in seeing the ones that were not validated, and we 8~ agreed with that.
9 As a result, what we're putting _on the Net today 10 are issues that are both validated as valid discrepancies, 11 and issues that are determined not to be valid, and the 112' basis-for-that1 invalidation. So we've got in-a number of 13- instances some-very_ good suggestions about how we should 14 provide'information, what kind of information, and we're 15 trying to be responsive to that kind of suggestion. - 16 We are also, as you are aware, working closely 17 with the state-chartered-Nuclear Energy Advisory Council, 18 They are an important: element in this process, we'think. We 19- have attended meetings of theirs. They, at least selected 20 members, attend our meetings. We have a memorandum of 21- understanding in place for them to participate as they will
- 22 in some-of our inspections and, in fact, have been active ,
23- participants in the selection-of systems for ICAVP as you. 24 know. 25 We are also keeping state and local officials ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,.LTD. Court Reporters 1250.I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
129 1 advised of the progress of our program and ultimately, of 2 course, what we are about is documenting the basis for 3 coming to the Commission ultimately with a recommendation 4 for restart of each of the three units. 5 An important element of the restart 4:sessment 6 plan is the listing, the significant items list, that you 7 have heard some discussion already today of. The SIL or 8 significant items list for each unit is an all-inclusive 9 listing, really, of the issues that we think are key to 10 staff recommendation to the Commission on restart. And we 11 have tried to provide a rack-up of the number of SIL items 12 for each of the three units, submissions that the utility 13 has made to explain closure for each of these items and the 14 ones that we have actually closed in our review. 15 We have characterized these only in whole SIL 16 items, if you will. So our characterization is a little 17 different here than the one you saw presented by Northeast 18 because in any individual SIL item there are many 19- subcomponents so what we have tried to give you is a rack-20 up against the way we account for these things. 21 As an example of how that might-impact the way
, 22 this is presented, we have submittals in a partial sense on 23 a number of more than the 34 for Unit 3, for example, that 24 are listed here. We just don't have all of the information 25 that the utility would like to provide us in making their ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
130 1 case for~ closure'and I should point out that the information 2 they are providing in these packages is just one mechanism, 3 -just one vehicle for what the Staff is going-to be 4 evaluating in its determination of closure or not. 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: How are you documenting the 6 closures? In inspection reports or in correspondence to the 7 licensee or what?- 8 DR. TRAVERS: Thus far, we have been documenting 9- lthem in inspection reports. In our restart assessment plan, 10 we actually link by a reference the inspection. reports that 11 close each individual item. 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Have any ICAVP deficiencies-13 been transferred to the-significant items list? 14 MR. McKEE: I think some have. I am trying to 15 recall. Or maybe the discovery -- 16 DR. TRAVERS: ~I think things that have been 17 discovered in the licensee's configuration management 18-
~
program are-on the significant items list. For example,-the 19 ' problem with the recirc-spray, suction, MPSH suction voiding 20 issue, that I believe is on the SIL. -So some of those 21 issues that were identified by the licensee have been 22 transferred to the'SIL. . .23 CHAIRMNR JACKSON: I would like you to keep the 24 Commission apprised, first of'all, of the-overlap and then,- 25 if any items are moved from'the -- any ICAVP deficiencies ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court-Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
131 1- get moved to the significant items list and how you -- 2 because this is, in fact, an indication of NU's oversight. 3 We need to have a measure of that. 4 Then my only other question en this page is, have 5 any allegations resulted as a consequence of the disposition 6 or closure of any of these items? 7 DR. TRAVERS: Let me make sure I understand the 8 question. Are you asking the question in our closure have 9 we received any allegations about the information submitted? 10 Or our view of closure on these items? I think the answer I 11 to that question is, no. 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Because sometimes if you are 13 about to close an item there are those who believe that the 14 item has not been sufficiently resolved. And that has not 15 occurred to this point for these? 16 DR. TRAVERS: No. 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, thank you. 18 DR. TRAVERS: I probably ought to point out that 19 in addition to racking up these things numerically, NU 20 already expressed this view, we have been looking at the 21 quality of the submittals that have been provided to us and
, 22 early on we expected some improvement in that quality and we 23 believe that the packages that we are getting now are 24 relatively.high quality. This is just one measure in our 25 view but we think it is an important one.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
132 1 We wanted to continue the update for the 2 Commission on the-status of activities that we last told you
- 3. we would expect to accomplish in the-next three months and I 4 have listed them here.
5 Basically, we have accomplished all of the-6 activities that we indicated we would have expected to in 7 the last three-months, including approval of Sargent and 8 Lundy audi". plan for Units 1-and I, organization appreval of 9 Parsons, approval of'the Parsons audit plan. We have 10 completed the selection of all four systems for the-Unit 3 11 ICAVP and, again, two of those systems were selected by-the 12 NEAC. I 13 Again, I will make mention of the fact that while 14 we say all four systems, this is the minimum set of systems, 15 nominal set, if you will, of systems we.would expect-16- encompassed within this' program and they may be the extent 17 to which we go, depending on the findings that are 18 evidenced. 4 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:- You expect four for-Parsons' 20 review'also? 21 DR. TRAVERS:- Correct. Thus far,- two have.been 22- selected and the second -- I'm sorry, the second grouping of , 23- two would again be selected by the NEAC. 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you-have any initial 25 observations from your inspection of the Unit 3 ICAVP ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-
i 133:- 1 ! implementation or of the-deficiencies identified to-date?
- 2 DR. TRAVERS: It has really just begun so we don't
- 3 .have a lot to sl. ore with you today. I think we would expect L 4 to be in a much better position at the next meeting or
.5- sooner because we will issue an inspection report sooner.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes, sooner might be better. 7 DR. TRAVERS: One thing that I don't have listed 8 on here that we have been attempting to do as well is to 9- keep the public informed about our programs. I mentioned 10 that earlier but in the context'of ICAVP, there has been a 11 concern expressed administration it relates principally to 12 the extensiveness _or comprehensiveness of the.ICAVP-program, o 13 So the next slide, and again this has been touched on a 14 little bit earlier, but I wanted to highlight the fact that 15 we have been doing our best to explain-that we believe the 16' ICAVP is really a very comprehensive system of review. It 17 is not-100 percent and we have tried to explain this to the-18: public. But we-have, I think, undervalued it a bit in characterizing it as simply four systems out-of 88.-- 20- - CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I-think what you need to do,- { 121 frankly, is to make the case for what the-significance of.
, 22 the four is and the-linkages at the boundaries to other 23 . systems and until I ask, there was no-discussion in terms of 24- issues'in the'electricalTarea and I think you'need to cull 25- that out for more' specific discussion relative to the i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street,1N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
134 1- -systems that you have selected.
-2 DR. TRAVERS:
That's a good point and we didn't 3 intend to do that today but I did want to let you know -- 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, no, you were not asked to 5 do that today. 6 DR. TRAVERS: -- that we have been attempting-to - 7- do that in public at our meetings to describe again what we 8 feel is a very comprehensive system, one that we are trying 9' not to kid anyone is a hundred percent review of everything 10 NU needs to do but one that we think would provide high 11- confidence that we have been able to scrutinize the results 12 of their effort quite well. 13 The only point I want to make on this slide is 14 that of the four systems that NRC would nominally identify-15 for each of the three units, and I will use Unit 3 as an E16 examp:e, the four systems are listed here but when they are 17 broken'out in1the context of the maintenance rule. 18 definitions,.it:really amounts to, in the Tier I review 19 itself, some'15 systems. Additionally, when you take into 20- account the more limited' review under Tier II but j 21 nevertheless a review encompassing key-aspects of some 22 additional 22 systems, it gives you another. sense of how , 23: comprehensive-the ICAVP:is. 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But-also I'just think again,
-25 and I-want to: reemphasize my particular interest having to .
- I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite-300
. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 ,
= --. - . ._ -_
135 1- -do with the linkages to1I&C. 2 MR. CALLAN: Yes'. 3 DR. TRAVERSt. You raised a good point and I will 4 tell you that in the selection of systems that-the NRC made, 5 we specifically did not select an electrical system or an 6 I&C system because of the point you made and that is when we 7 encompass electrical within these other systems, we really 8- bite off a pretty good review in that area ac well as I&c. 9 So-we didn't want to -- we figured we could get more
.10 evaluation by selecting systems that have a diversity of' 11 technical areas.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And under the Tier III with
- 13. respect to the historical audit of changes to plant 14 configuration, how historical is that audit? Are you going 15 back to the operating license stage?
16 MR. McKEE: -Yes. Yes.
?,7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
18 MR. McKEE: Very historical. 19: CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Very historical. The beginning
-- 2 0 of time -- okay, 21 DR. TRAVERS: In terms of activities that we would .- 22 expect to accomplish in the-next three months, we have 23 mentioned NEAC selection of the final two systems orLat 2 41 least the final two nominal-systems'for Unit-2 ICAVP.
25 We would expect the implementation inspections at i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
136 1 both Units 2 and 3 to have begun. In fact at Unit 3 it has 2 begun. 3 The ICAVP out of scope system inspection would be 4 expected to have begun for both units, and again that is an 5 NRC inspection -- 6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right.
- 7 DR. TRAVERS: --
that would take a system outside 8 the scope of the four nominally identified. 9 Lastly, we would expect to have begun, and I am 10 not sure we would have it completed, but at least begun the 11 Unit 3 in-scope inspection, a system group. 12- Updating you on the status of the activities we 13 highlighted last time, after NRC received the proposed 14 oversight plan from Little Harbor we met with the public to 15 obtain input on that proposal and we have since approved the 16 audit plan that Little Harbor is using. 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Did you-understand the point I 18 was making with them about looking at specific areas for 19 improvement and tracking them and folding them into the 20 schedule? 21 MR. CALLAN: Yes. That point wasn't lost on us. 22 I think that the fact that there are two separate orders , 23 that have to be responded to is a point that I think 24 deserves reminding everybody of. 25 DR.-TRAVERS: Additionally as part of our review ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 137 l ! 1 of the oversight plan we interviewed the third party 2 organization team members and we really did that to ! 3 determine if the expertise matched the objectives that are 4 contained in the plan. 5 We have aise met with Little Harbor and the 6 licensee on several occasions to discuss the status and 7 results of their initial activities and again all of those 8 meetings have been in the Millstone area and in fact in the 9 realm of keeping the public informed, we had a suggestion 10 that we bring Little Harbor to our next public meeting to 11 discuss the results of their review and we are going to be 12 doing that next week. 13 In the next three months in this area we would 14 expect to continue to monitor the licensee's implementation 15 of their Employee Concerns Program and Little Harbor's 16 implementation of the oversight plan. 17 We expect to conduct several meetings with Little ' 18 Harbor and the licensee and we expect to have initiated our 19 own NRC inspection in this area to get a separate but 20 related view of the status and progress of these efforts. 2.1 As an update, licensing issues are also tracked in 22 the Restart Assessment Plan, and we have included on this 23 slide a description of the status of those. 24 At Unit 3 for example, since last time I think 15 25 additional licensing submittals have been made in the last ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
138 1 three months. Right now the-schedule calls for the last 2 Unit 3 license submittal to be submitted to NRC in September 3- of:'97-and-we expect that this should-facilitate our ability 4 to review those required license amendments more or less on 5 the schedule that we have laid out in the next slide or two.
-6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me just ask you two quick 7 questions. !
8 You show for Unit 3 four additional issues to be 9 submitted. 10 The next slide indicates completion by 10-12 1 11 ' roughly. Do we understand these issues?- 12 DR. TRAVERS: Which-ones they are? We have an
-13 accounting of what issues are in the works, yes.
D 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: In terms of what it may involve
-15 so that we are comfortable in terms of the resolution of
- 16. them by_this projected date.
17 DR. TRAVERS: We have an understanding of them, 18 but there may be areas that we don't understand as well, not 19 having the submittal in hand. 20- Right now we are saying -- 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So they are really outside the 22 scope in a certain. sense of this date of 10-12? , 23 MR. LANNING: If I may, I'mean we are aware,_as . 24 Dr. Travers mentioned, we're aware of the issues-and we 25 understand the issues, although they are still being worked ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
139 1 on by the licensee so there may be some nuances or things 2 that will require further review on our part, but submitted 3 by that date -- you are correct, the October 12th date for 4 completion of all the processes for review -- it would be 5 beyond that time. 6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Have any of the issues 7 that you are talking about particularly vis-a-vis Unit 3 8 provided any improvements relative to improved standard tech 9 specs? 10 DR. TRAVERS: Standard tech specs -- I don't know . 11 any that have been fed into that program. 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 13 DR. TRAVERS: But that relates to a question you 14 asked earlier and one which we were going to take on, and 15 the question as I understood it related to whether or not we 16 were tracking issues at Millstone against the possibility of 17 them being generic issues. 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. 19 DR TRAVERS: And certainly we are. In the 20 broader sense, of course, the causative issues at Millstone 21 has caused the Commission to take a number of steps,
, 22 including look at design issues at other plants.
23 More specific to your question is at Millstone I 24 don't know that we have identified specific technical issues 25 which today have been identified as generic issues. E ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
140 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. 2 DR. TRAVERS: The next slide precents an update of 3 our project planning schedule for Unit 3. While some of the 4 intermediate dates have changed since the last meeting with-5 the Commission, our bottom line assessment of where this 6 project could be in December has not changed. . 7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Now I am going to 8 clarify for the record that these are projected schedules 9 that are referenced to the licensee's schedules, but with a 10 clear underotanding that a complete resolution of issues 11 that have to be resolved and that our full process will be 12 gone through and if there is not satisfactory resolution, 13 that these are not fixed dates per se. 14 DR. TRAVERS: In fact, in crafting this projected 15 schedule, there are two key elements that I think of 16 whenever-I look at this thing. 17 Number one is that they are based initially on 18 expected completion dates of licensee activities, the date 19 that they have provided to us; and secondly, they assume 20 that the quality of what we review is going to be quite high 21 and that what se don't-have do is expand the scope of
- 22 programs like ICAVP, for example. .
23 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: If you compare, I mean, if you 25 look at this October 2 and look at the presentation by , ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
141 i i Sargent and Lundy and where they are in Tier I and beginning 2 Tier II, do you think that October 2 in a reasonable -- 3 CHAIRMAN JACV. SON: Good question. Do they match? 4 DR. TRAVERS: I think they have said they are 5 under review still in terms of their schedule. 6 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: But I want your opinion. 7 DR. TRAVERS: Right now, as we have understood it, 8 I think it is going to be challenging. I think it is going 9 to be a challenging thing for them to complete it on the 10 schedule that is currently in this projection. But if they 11 do, these things can fall in the fashion that we have listed 12 here. 13 Secondly, the next slide provides a project 14 planning schedule for the first tLne for Unit 2 that we were 15 not -- we couldn't provide last time and the processes and 16 the-identified milestones are essentially the same for Unit 17 2 as we have identified for Unit 3 and they result in a 18 Commission briefing approximately March 13. 19 Commissioner McGaffigan asked a question earlier 20 about the dif ference between February and March and I think 21 we are talking about just a few weeks here and yet I am 22 trying to -- I am going to try to look to see where those 23 couple, three weeks' difference come from. We did not do 24 that extensively before this meeting. We will try to do 25 that. 7d04 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
142 1 I will mention that I have added one milestone at 2 the end of the schedule to both the Unit 3 projected ! 3 planning schedule and the Unit 2 and that indicates a post-4 restart inspection program. And what we wanted to do here 5 really is put a placeholder rather than define an interval 6 of time in any specific way that would indicate that we 7 would expect certainly to continue enhanced scrutiny during 8 power ascension and in fact what we would propose to do is 9 provide the Commission with a plan for a power ascension 10 program of NRC inspection and scrutiny. l 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What I would like other see l 12 added to this, which is also a message again to Little . 13 Harbor consultants as well as to the licensee, a specific , 14 fleshed out project planning schedule relative to the 15 employee concerns program. You have an item seven here i 16 which says, inspection. But it doesn't have the degree of 17 specificity that you lay out for the others. 18 DR. TRAVERS: We'll do that. 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you. 20 DR. TRAVERS: Lastly, or at least the last slide 21 in this presentation, is an attempt to answer a question 22 that came up at our last meeting and it was could we put a , 23 projection of the resources that it will take to complete 24 the project. We have done that indicating where principally 25 at least the resources will come from in a memorandum from 7dRJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
143 1 the EDO, essentially some additional description of the 2 impacts as we understand them from taking those resources 3 and laid them out in this table. 4 Again, I will just point out that the NRR line at 5 the top of the slide includes the detailed Region I 6 resources, Mr. Lanning and the resident inspectors who are 7 included in our Special Projects Office so -- 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You feel they are adequate 9 relative to the schedule as you have laid it out to this 10 point? 11 DR. TRAVERS: Yes. And I will just point out as 12 well we have biased some of these resource requirements in 13 the direction of using contractors for much of -- you will 14 see a fairly large $4 million estimate for the technical 15 -assistance that will be required in our estimation through 16 the end of the project. 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commisbioner Dia:? 18 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I don't have any questions. 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan? 20 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: There is one comment I-21 would like to make or ask a question. You addressed the 22 issue of a time delay or the difference in Millstone 2. One 23- of the things that struck me about the Millstone 3 schedule 24 is you heard the vice president for Unit 3 constantly refer 25 to the expected date which, until this morning, was the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 144 1 expected date for OSTI inspection of October 21. Now it is 2 October 13. I am just wondering about these time lags i - 3 between -- I mean, this paper looks like it was put together 1 4 around the 16th of July and here it is the 6th of August. 5 We didn't get it as a Commission until about the 29th of 4 6 July. l 7 Should their ht A 20-day -- if, indeed, you knew 8 on the -- that your expected date for the OSTI had been l 9 moved up eight days compared to what you had told the l l 10 licensee earlier, should there be a 20-day delay in him 11 finding that out so that ne can adjust to our schedule? How 12 does that work? 13 Part of my -- the followup question I am going to 14 ask is should we get this document out to the licensee, the-15 document that is released today at the Commission meeting? 16 As far_as I am concerned, it can go out the day it is sent 17 to the Commission so as to facilitate communication. If 18 that is -- if it is done on paper. 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: May I rephrase the question? 20 Is there clear concurrence between the NRC staff and the 21 licensee on the dates for, say, the OSTI inspection? 22 DR. TRAVERS: Concurrence? , 23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Clarity? 24 DR TRAVERS: In fact, it goes to a question you 25 raised in your opening remarks about communications and I IdRJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
145 1 think we are trying-to be as clear as we can on a real time 2 basis. I don't know if we have shared any new dates since 3 generating this package with the licensee but perhaps we 4 have. But the most important element from my perspective is 5 they may have a date for their readiness for the OSTI. Our 6 planning practical restrictions may argue that we can't do 7 it the next day and I can't ansuer the -- 8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Well, you moved this one 9 up eight days. Compared to what they thought before, you 10 know, you have moved this one up and I suspect it has 11 something to do with not having people there at 12 Thanksgiving. Just, you know -- 13 CHAIMUW JACKSON: I think the important point is, 14 well, two fold. He want, of course, to have truth in 15 advertising here and that relates to the documentary record, 16 although I accept that it can be updated, you know, after 17 the fact of a paper that has gone through the usual 18 concurrence chain. 19 But I think the important issue is that there is 20 clarity in terms of the communication between you and all of 21 the stakeholders involved on how things are tracking and
, 22 what the dates are and that as soon as they are changed that 23 all stakeholders are aware that they have changed.
24 DR. TRAVERS: We will certainly try to make sure 25 we do that. AllN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ==
146 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me, assuming there are no 2 further questions, thank Northeast Utilities Fuclear, 3 Sargent and Lundy, Parsons Power, Little Harbor Consultants 4 and the NRC staff for briefing the Commission on the 5 progress in assessing readiness for restart of the Millstone 6 units. 7 The Commission realizes that it is, in fact, 8 difficult to condense, as we see, the substance of the 9 reviews performed by each of you into briefings like this. 10 But, in fact, these are very important. But it is because 11 of that need for that condensation as well as the direct 12 oversight that the NRC created the Special Projec s Office 13 to provide for direct oversight of all licensing and 14 inspection activities and to tailor the NRC's staff 15 guidelines for restart approval, i.e., the Manual Chapter 16 0350 process, to specifically assess the progress against 17 deficiencies at the Millstone units. 18 And the Commission values the independent feedback 19 not only on the progress of the licensees but on the process 20 that is being utilized and I encourage the Special Projects 21 Office to continue what you have been doing and to continue
- 22 to assess the effectiveness of the process itself, along .
23 with your primary task of determining whether the Millstone 24 organization is functioning in total with the proper 25 perspective for safe operation. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
147 1 The Commission appreciates the insights from the 2 contractors and the licensee in obtaining honest feedback on 3 the challenges and successes in making Millstone a safe 4 station with an effective corrective action program, within 5 an environment that is supportive of raising and resolving 6 safety concerns. 7 As I state at each meeting, the Commission does 8 not presuppose that any of the three plants will restart by 9 a certain date. It is important, though, to have specific 10 schedules and because-the Commission must ensure that we 11 have the allocation of adequate resources to the oversight 12 and to the process. So we will continue to assess the 13 progress being made in readiness for restart and to assess 14 whether our own assessment process is effective, 15 comprehensive and timely. 16 I was going to say something about the next 17 projected Commission meeting but I won't. We will advertise 18 it at the appropriate time. 19 So unless my colleagues have further comments, we 20 are adjourned. 21 Thank you.
, 22 (Whereupon,-at 12:52 p.m., the meeting was 23 -concluded.]
24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, _N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached description of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled: TITLE OF MEETING: MEETING WITH NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ON MILLSTONE -- PUBLIC MEETING PLACE OF MEETING: Rockville, Maryland DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, August 6, 1997 was held as herein appears, is a true and accurate record of the meeting, and that this is the original transcript thereof taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company. y
', j'f,'
Transcriber / 'N [f */
. Reporter: Mark ]QdLqnev i
R Progress at Millstone Station Northeast Utilities Presentation forthe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC Headquarters Rockville, Maryland August 6,1997
- s
- Northeast Nuclear Energy -
Bruce Kenyon President & CEO Northeast Nuclear Energy Company
< s a
Northeast Nuclear Energy - Page 1 i
~
Agenda
+ Leadership / Buzz Carns
- Milestone Progress
- Oversight Dave Goebel
+ Configuration Marty Bowling Management /
Corrective Action / Self Assessment
+ Safety-Conscious Mike Brothers Work Environment /
Unit 3 Readiness Northeast Nuclear Energy - r NU Nuclear Participants
- Buzz Carna Senior Vice President & CNO
+ Dave Goebel - VP, Nuclear Oversight
- Mike Brothers VP, MIIIstone Unit 3
- Mas ty Bowling - Unit Officer, MIIIstone 2 ,
+ Jack McElwain - Unit Officer, MIIIstone 1
- Jay Thayer - VP, Nuclear Engineering &
Support t
' a Northeast Nuclear Energy -
a Page 2
We Have increased Our Public Outreach to Restore Trust
+ Community Discussions
+ Leadership Breakfasts
+ Millstone Advisory Council
+ Public Attendance at Plant Meetings
+ Questions from Public after NRC Meetings
+ Enhanced Outreach to the News Media
+ Revitalized Speaker's Bureau Northeast Nuclear Energy -
r Leadership Buzz Carns Senior Vice President & chief Nuclear Officer
< 8 Northeast Nuclear Energy ~
s Page 3
Leadership Assessment Results Show improvements in All Areas a .i...,*a ,' " - r 7 m
; f;r, p g l 'k N Lj
== y 4 we 3
...'~=.a we.come n e _ _
c t ea.,w, ,
'0 " 5 i C 5 % 5 5 E '". r .T '
7 s Milestones Unit 3 Unit 2 VLnli.,1
'lCAVP Readiness Mot 5/27 Met 6/30 1/5/98
+ Comptetion CMP Met.7/16 9/13/97 12/1/97 Discovery
- Physical Plant 9/30/97 11/25/97 3/30/98 Readiness
- OSTI Readiness 9/30/97 12/1/97 4/3/98 .
+ Final 10CFR50.54(f) 11/22/97 11/22/97 4/3/98 Submittal
+ Ready for Modo 4 11/22/97 12/1/97 4/3/98
+ Ready for 12/19/97 2/98 6/98 Commission Voto e
Northeast Nuclear Energy - Page 4
i Oversight Dave Goebel Vice President Nuclear Oversight
~.
Northeast Nuclear Energy - m x Nuclear Oversight is identifying Key issues
+ Configuration Management 50.54(f)
+ Training Adherence to Systems Approach to Training (SAT)
+ EEQlSeismic Programs Conformancs
+ Quality of Coatings and Applications
+ implementation oiCorrective Actions e '
Northeast Nuclear Energy - w Page 5
s Unit and Support Organizations Have improved Self Assessment and Work Observations ,
- Numberincreasing
+ Quality improving
+ Training and mentoring ongoing
+ Oversight sampling results for effectiveness
~
Northeast Nuclear Energy - independent Assessment Of Nuclear Oversight identified the Need For Further improvements in:
+ Enhancoments to Culture
~
~ role of Oversight
+ Teamwork and Alignment *
+ Communication / Product Quality
+ lssue Follow up x
e Northeast Nuclear Energy - n Page 6
i NSAB Improving
+ Enhanced Organizational Structure
- strengthened membership e added unit officers
.- -increased independence e added 4 external consultants
+ Increased Performance Based Focus
- assessing Oversight recovery effectiveness
- assessing Line readiness for restart
- 50.59 safety evaluation process
,l -l Northeast Nuc!aar Energy -
Configuration Management /
- Corrective Actions /
Self Assessment Marty Bowling Recovery Officer Millstone Unit 2 e s u
- Northeast Nuclear Energy -
Page 7 1
I A Configuration Management: Expectations are being met .
+ Licensing, design and operating bases for each unit are being validated '
+ Organizational focus to maintain long-term configuration management has been established
~
Northeast Nuclear Energy - g
\
Results From Discovery
- MP_2 MP3 t UFSAR changes ~300 ~200
+ Procedure changes ~60 ~40 ,
- Tech Spec changes 13 24
+ Drawing changes ~100 250 ,
+ Calculation changes ~100 120
+ Modifications 96 106
- As of July 15.1997 Northeast Nuclear Energy -
n Page 8
l k Safety Significance of i Reportable items Safety Slanificanco MP2 MP3
- Reportable items: 68 75
-Iow 65 67
- Inoderate 3 7
- high 0 1
, s
,7 Northeast Nuclear Energy -
s 50.54(f) Response Status item Catqgory MP_2 MP3
- Significant(restart)
- open 676 776
- closed 726 606
+ Not Significant 384 1387 (post-restart)
- x se Northeast Nuclear Energy -
Page 9
r Corrective Action Program: Effectiveness must stIII be demonstrated .
- Timeliness and quality are improving
+ Expectations for low thresho;c are being met
+ Backlogs remain high because of '
emphasis on discovery
+ Focus and priority being given to key site-wide issues Northeast Nuclear Energy -
n Management Expectations Are Being Met j "0 _
' !/ "
Total 111ll-lll.l.:e..u..;,n / 6es (Megeo essegen hesens ! Soueme teeggae, a M!!!Ill!IIIT: ..-e ....-....,i Page 10
l l l Backlogs Reflect Emphasis on Discovery i i
, Unit 2 ...,
,f--- a'~._!: u_F_
. __yge.,wwj l
... E E E
*- {
g- -{ iirc..nr,. iri 3.e. p;;g..,
~
Unit 3
- f. .
_.#*-~* ~~{ * ",O"1
,_ cM ay,l, m
,s*c= t u - - - . .
, ~
, pin ia. un osaq 22 Page 11
\
,, w - , - . . - r - , , ,, , - . - , - , -- , - -
A Self-Assessment: Comprehensive program being implomented to assure readiness for ' conduct of safe operation
+ Self assessments being focused on -
conduct of safe operations
+ Confirmations by Nuclear Oversight and NSAB for unit readiness x
Northeast Nuclear Energy - g, f
\
Self Assessments Required for Readiness for OSTI
+ System readiness
+ Unit department readiness .
+ Unit / Site readiness
+ Independent Oversight affirmation 8
e Northeast Nuclear Energy - 2. Page 12
f Safety-Conscious Work Environment / Unit 3 Readiness Mike Brothers Vice President Millstone Unit 3
, s Northeast Nuclear Energy -
A Safety-Conscious Work Environment
... critical to MIIIstone success
+ Establishing and maintaining a safety-conscious work environment is critical to our success:
-it is a Leadership function
-it enhances our ability to carry out activities
-IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO
' s a
Northeast Nuclear Energy - Page 13
I Millstone's Safety-Conscious Work Environment ... , A safety conscious work environment is an environment where all members
- of the NU Nuclear team feel comfortable raising any Issue important to them with the confidence that the issue will be addressed with commitment, respect, and timeIIness.
Northeast Nuclear Energy - We Have Made Progress ...
+ Clear expectations delivered for handling of employee issues
+ Improved processes .
+ Improved training
+ 1mproved feedback mechanisms .
- Pil Culture Survey
- Leadership Assessment
- Self Assessments ,
+ Indicators are improving s
Northeast Nuclear Energy - Page 14
\
[ We Are Monitoring Our Actions ...
# + Pil Culture Survey
+ Leadership Assessment
+ Self assessments
+ Feedback from:
-industry peers
-experts
-internal and external oversight (2mployoo Concerns Oversight Panel, NRC, ITPOP Little Harbor Consultants)
Northeast Nuclear Energy - s Millstone 3 Milestones
- Ready for OSTI 9/30/97
~
+ Physically Ready for Restart 9/30/97
+ Ready for Mode 4 11/22/97
+ Ready for Commission Vote 12/19/97
, ~
n Northeast Nuclear Energy - Page 15
Millstone 3 Challenges
+ Task Completions Required for Restart '
+ Significant items List
+ Restart Modifications Awalting implementation
+ AWOs Required for Restart s
Northeast Nuclear Energy - Task Completions Required for Restart Millstone 3 July 1997
' '"' ^
'**' ,.?a??tN?o?,,sen'$oo"$"e'nd5"p'ro
,e om,,,,o,,,s ,e e~tse $s"o?$?e $1oNn15s
- - - - ... ~ ---
4ke - ~ _ _ --.--. . .
~
'[
,,I '*/iy$
, - . - w
- \ '
l$ $A$,
'~
_ . .. . ,, .. t e ~ w w .isni g w c.c,4 e s m + s.T
. N Northeast Nuclear Energy -
22 Page 16
I s Significant items List Millstone 3 July 1997 o progtegg: Closure ofitems on the Gog,utosent stems L6st te e sheltenge for the 813 97 and 9 '3091 pools.
- e
'" ' c,s e,,,4c l ,'I, \ f _ .11*?' . .
c-d a i ca .i .m
'a g ; . % .,a 7
g i e we ,e ,,e - I I' 'IE"I'
,_E_E_ \f e
,_ , ,7 g ' ,, ;;
. e..._e y..
8 Northeast Nuclear Energy - n Restart Modifications Awaiting implementation Millstone 3 July 1997 Progress: percent compera tor tnesneertng os currentry nu end construstien ts t$1e complete This poet remains thanenging and the focus of incree sed menagement ettenoon. w_
'" ' fletid4M4 3 in se.sy in :- %e ' 100 g ,-
L " ,
..3 u,_
mooAamuns j a .., 1.w emi : g g j e _ dea Fe. her Ap vn Ac M 44 5e Qt es= ces G m ar. ..~. um.mi.4. ,o ,, , cmo , e Northeast Nuclear Energy - u Page 17
1 AWOs Required for Restart Millstone 3. July 1997 requ edfor e tertis ow than es ce n c nen ly th 10 ges e
- te s taet timekne.
'l{ i ws os.c
/ ~n:: -
* -- w f
ino. L r ,,. .
= ==-------
um_m^*sm ?*a"3;.M'i^? M M;9 y b Northeast Nuclear Energy - n Major Work Activities Have Been Completed
+ Safety injection Flow Orifice -Installed
- Letdown Orifice - replaced ,
- Letdown Heat Exchanger - replaced
+ Vital Batteries 1 and 2 - replaced .
+ Discovery on Maintenance Rule Group 1 and Group 2 Systems - complete
+ Corrective Action evaluations backlog -
current N;'theast Nuclear Energy - u Page 18
i Safety Significant items Found During CMP Discovery
+ High Significance 1
- - ECCS Throttle Valve settings
+ Moderate Significance -7
- bypass flow around Service Water strainers
- MOV performance
- RSS Sump Screen gaps Northeast Nuclear Energy -
Significant Issues (conunued)
+ Moderate sigDificance (continued)
- RSS pump cavitation
- PORV block valves
- ARCOR coating in service water 4
- SBO diesel battery capacity x
as Northeast Nuclear Energy - Page 19
)
f Our Focus on Operational Readiness ...
+ Standards are being raised
+ Operator challen!pe are being reduced
+ Operators are being trained on ,
modifications
+ Operators are being refamiliarized with startup and at-power requirements
- procedure training
- observations at other plants
+ Assessments are being used to monitor readiness x
Northeast Nuclear Enc::V - a r Summary
+ Progress made towards establishing a Safety-Consc!ous Work Environment .
+ Millstone Unit 3 able to support a 10/21 OSTI and a 12/19 Commission .
presentation Northeast Nuclesr Energy - Page 20
I r b Concluding Remarks Bruce Kenyon Northeast Nuclear Energy - x Progress on Key Site-Wide Issues issue Success Manaaement Criteria Met Expectations Met
- Leadership partial yes
+ Regulatory partial yes Compliance
- Oversight partial no
.
- NSAB partial yes
+ Emergency Plan no yes
- Radiological partial yes Protection
- Secitrity partial yes
- Procedure Quality partial yes and Adherence '
e Northeast Nuclear Energy -
<a Page 21
~ q Progress on Key Site-Wide Issues issue Success Mannaement Criteria Mej Expectations Met
+ Self Assessment partial yes
- Corrective Action partial no
+ Configuration partial yes ,
Management
- Safety Conscious partial yes Work Environment
+ Work Control no no
- Training partial no
+ Operator Readiness partial yes s
Northeast Nuclear Energy - n l r Page 22
COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 6,1997 MILLSTONE UNIT 3 INDEPENDENT CORRECTIVE ACTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM STATUS REVIEW Jhl N"~
Background of ICAVP Confirmatory Order - August 14,1996
- lCAVP Oversight Plan - January 30,1997 NU Selects Sargent & Lundy for Unit 3 ICAVP
-12/19/96 NU Selects Parsons Power for Unit 2 ICAVP
-2/14/97 g -
~
lb -
Scope of ICAVP Review of engineering design and configuration control processes Verification of current, as modified conditions against design and licensing basis documentation Verification that the design and licensing bases requirements have been translated into operating, maintenance and test procedures Verification of system performance Review of corrective actions for identified deficiencies h
l Structure of ICAVP Tier 1 - Verify system meets licensing / design bases and system functionality. Tier 2 - Verify that system design parameters relied on to mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents analyzed in the FSAR are consistent with the performance of the current system configuration. Tier 3 - Verify that the configuration control processes have not introduced changes that have put the unit in nonconformance with its licensing and design bases.
=- ...
ICAVP Implementation on Unit 3 Tier 1 - System Review Group (SRG)
- Configuration Review Group (CRG)
- O&M and Testing Review Group (ORG)
Tier 2 - Accident Mitigation Review Group (ARG) Tier 3 - Programmatic Review Group (PRG)
~
Project Team Project } ) Director 1
]?
twa wwwaa.a l m == IRC ."1. . . . . . Verification ?! t (4) # Team Manager i w a.
.3 k.u n w 2 &saw w 1 id$ thats.aw vel.w wwNb 9
9 9
- m m SRG Q ORG *;. ,
ARG j PRG B l (33) 1 (6) P (7) :1 (6) a
+-:- d s 9
l tense m aam aava n a ^ ts u n m a s a x a s d,, magmasswan uwes wac h unt 0 8 9
; , ; TIER 2 TIER 3
' CRG -
1 TIER 1 :
. (8) .g 3
0 E
' k[5s!PNM43NMELNESrdid$$NN O
. % d %...
e '., .
..... --------------------------------------- e p I%n-(
u-: a -
?
8 8 e 6
Internet Web Site Status Went on-line ~ 6/17/97. Contains:
- Project manual
- Calendar for meeting notices and meeting summaries
. - Discrepancy reports and resolutions
- Final report (later) www.sichicago.com/mp-icavp
~
Jl[h
Northeast Utilities - Millstone Unit 3 s.v tca y awer ICAVP Milestone Schedule o Tookname l St.t l Finleh Merch l Apre l May l June l July l August lf_,_.L;l October l November 1 Subrrut Unit 3 Aucet Plan b NRC br oppwel 3/1787 347S7 g l
. I 2 NRC Anah2e approvalof NU se8%;n 4/7S7 4/767 7 l l 3 Obtain rmsystem specific Unit 3 documents 4/17 S 7 5/12 S 7 _
2 4 NRC Approve Unit 3 AutSt Plan 4G9S7 5/16S7 g l t 5 Mobitze and Tra!n Project Team Sn2S7 SG3S7 g_ C INU completes CMP on Wave 1 systems Sr27/97 527S7 q 7 f 7 NRC Select flrat 2 Urdt 3 systems 5/27S7 5G8S7 l 8 Obtaen system s sodfic does for first 2 syst SG9S7 7/24 S7 .' g . g I 9 6/19S7 6/19S7 Mee8tng w/ NU,1RC on 1st 2 syst bounderles ; 13 Perform Tier 2 t-nd Tier 3 Reviews 5727S 7 95S7 g 11 Perform Tier 1 Reviews on first 2 6'12 S 7 9/12 S 7
) [ ;
12 NU completes CMP on Wave 2 & 3 systems 7/1767 7/17S7 g 7fgy 13 NRC / NEAC Select remaining Un!t 3 systems 7/17S7 7/1787 3 13 Obtain system spedle does for remairung syst 7/18S 7 M4S7 g ; 15 MeeIng w/ NU NRC on rem. syst bounderles 8/12S7 8/12 S 7 l
.I lg 16 Perbrm Tier 1 Review on remaining systems 7/2597 9/12S7 ;
p l l 17 Process and Report Unit 3 Findngs 6/26S7 9/1957 g 13 NU Provide Proposed Resoluson b findngs 7GS7 9f26S7 g 12 Review NU Proposed Resolubon b findngs 7/11 S7 10GS7 g _ 20 Prepare Unit 3 Final Report 9/15S7 1'V1097 ! g i I C \NtNCAVP\SCHED%4fLESTON MPP Page1
Scope of Tier 1 Review Detailed Review of "4" Systems
- Service Water (SWP)
- Quench Spray / Recirculation Spray (QSS / RSS)
- Aux. Bldg. HVAC / SLCRS
- Emergency Diesel Generator and All Auxiliaries Encompasses 15 of the 88 NU MR systems Limited Revie'w of 51 Interfacing Systems
- 27 Interfaces with SWP
- 27 Interfaces with QSS/RSS
- 14 Interfaces with Aux. Bldg. HVAC / SLCRS 4 Interfaces with EDG and Auxiliaries
~'
j i
Tier 1 - System Review Status j Total Pop. % Complete SWP QSS SWP l QSS System Boundary Definition N/ N/A 10dh/o I0dh[ Document Gathering (RFis) N/A N/A 90 % 90 % Screen NU CMP Findings NIA N/A 90 % l 90 %
,_ _# ._._ p Identify System Require. !
472 1088 90% l 90% i Calculation Reviews 646 399 10% l 21%
. - . . . . . . . . . -.. 1- __.....-..-... [. . . . .
Component Reviews 2,423 1,871 2% 1% Topical Reviews ; 2 2 0% 0% Disposidon System FEequire. 472 _._._ _. -. _. p.. 108 [ bo[ j___db_
/o _ . _ . . . ~ . _ , .
__ .. p._. od Reviews 132 20 0% 0%
% 4 Lurww **
o.
Tier 1 - Physical Configuration Review Status Pop. % Complete I SWP QSS SWP QSS
~ '
ScopeWaikdown Boundary i 2,545 1,631 59 % 80 % Dwgs
~ ^
Redline Walkdown Dwgs 2,295 1,185 12% 13% Physical Dwg Review vs. 1,230 1,391 21 % 23 % Upper Tier Dwgs Functional Walkdowns 2,575 1,565 17% 0% (No. of Dwgs)
--.~,-------1---+--- ~ . - . - - - .._....-.-.,+._-..m. .. .., ~ ~ . . ~ . . - - . . - . . . . - . . . - .-t--.------.,--. .--<.4.- ---.<-..--t------
Modification Walkdowns 132 20 0% 0% (No. of Mods) ,
' ' ~~~
t*b ' l
i a l Tier 1 - O&M & Testing Review Status Total Pop. l % Complete SWP QSS
. ' SWP] QSS System Boundary Definition N/A N/A ,100% l 100%
. 1
_. ~ N/A Document Gathering (RFis) N/A l 90% j 90% Screen NU CMP Findings N/A N/A 15% 15% Identify System Require. 207 231 , 20% l 30% OPS /Maint/ Testing / Training 157 183 I 2% l 2%
' Procedure Reviews ~
i Disposition System Require. 207 231 l 0% l 0% Mod Reviews 132 20 l 0% l 0% s? j L
)
{k Y
Tier 1 - Remaing Systems Status Aux. Bldg. HVAC / SLCRS Emergency Diesel Generator and All Auxiliaries Boundary definition in process Boundary meetings scheduled for 8-6-97, . 8-7-97, and 8-13-97 Document retrieval in process jhh ~~
Tier 2 - Accident Review Status Completed Review of Millstone Unit 3 FSAR Chapter 15 (Accident Analysis) Identified Accident Mitigating Systems, Components and Critical Characteristics
Tier 2 - Accident Review Status > . Identified 22 Accident Mitigating Systems
- Emergency Core Cooling Systems
! - Reactor Protection System Reactor Coolant System
- Auxiliary Feedwater
- Auxiliary Building Ventilation System
- Control Room Ventilation
- Quench Spray System
- etc.
"~'~',h*"
Tier 2 - Accident Review Status Associated System Critical Characteristics
- Instrumentation Actuation - 35 '
' Pump Flows - 20
- Fan Flows - 10
- Valve Closures - 5
- Leakage Paths - 10
- Tank Levels and Boron Concentration - 10
- Operator Actions - 30
- Event Related Radiological Consequences - 25 d
jismgj p~
Tier 2 - Accident Review Status Submitted Accident Mitigating Systems, Critical Characteristics and Proposed Review Methodology. to the NRC for Approval Verification of System Critical Characteristics in Process
~~
j ?
Tier 3 - Programmatic Review Scope i ! Current change process review l Current change implementation reviews CMP corrective action review Past change reviews i 4 jl'jji7j p~
.. a
Tier 3 - Programmatic Review Status Current Change Processes
~
Completed review of all 11 processes Review covered 20 procedures and 8 chapters of the Design Control Manual (Rev. 5) Review resulted in the initiation of 8 discrepancy. reports:
- 6 DRs issued
- 2 DRs in-process
~
} --
i Tier 3 - Programmatic Review Status Current Change Process Implementation
- i Prepared 11 process implementation checklists l
i Review to be conducted in parallel with Tier 1 modification review NRC concurrence on checklists in process
. . . . i f
Tier 3 - Programmatic Review Status CMP Corrective Action Reviews Unresolved ! tem Reports (UIR) under review:
- 235 UIRs for SWP system - 265 UlRs for QSS/RSS systems-UIRs to be reviewed later: - 263 UlRs for Aux. Bldg. HVAC / SLCRS / EDG and Auxiliaries - Sample.of corrective actions outside the Tier 1 systems Previously identified design-related deficiencies from pre-OL p...
1 Tier 3 - Programmatic Review Status Past Change Reviews 10 categories of change items included in scope
- Lists of all changes since initial plant operation have~been requested for each category 1 -9 lists have been provided by NU Sample selection criteria have been submitted to NRC for 4 change categories.
{ ..
Discrepancies identified to Date 6 DRs issued to NU / NRC 13 DRs in process 6 Resolutions received from NU ! - S&L review of NU resolutions in process l
Agenda MILLSTONE UNIT 2 e Panons Poww ICAMeam e STATUS OF ICAVP o Status of Tier 1. 2 & 3 Actisities Ben Currya Me Bleeber o Status of Project Support Activitics Pereens Peuer assusts.1ss7
.- . E- . E-Parsons ICAVP Team Parsons Team Qualifications e Persons Team includes 19 MS Degrees. 8 Ph.D.
[ C*.';,' l degrees. 27 Professicual Engineers, and 10 former
""**g Reactor Operators or Senior Reactor Operators e Persons Team has approximately 30 pers everage M""."7, experwnce in the power industy
[ -Qm,,,,p e No Conflicts ofInterest noted for any team member (documented per COI fen) l C"ll* l C:".*::", l[ *C.*'lll" ll L'*1 ' mJ wJ W M.
. M: . M--
Tier 1 (SVSR) Review Process: Tier 1 (SVSR) Review Process: e Functional Review of the Entuo System and All e- e Tier i Systems Identifwd (Fast Oroup) g,,,,g,,,,
+nh s Prenan sareiy inpeuan pirs0 wah Raamlaswaar sioing Tm* (RWTO ME HEE 4inwfmass ymmes s 12 15
+ Amdwy Feedweler (AFw) wuh ch swage Tark
+ syman lawface Pomas 101 175 -
e System Boundary Process Identifwd All Functional System Interfaces and Umquely identined each
+ww unmarmd -.45 -30
+P,e c.imlauaes tannufied -12'217 -1W470 inserfece point e Syssarn Review Workbook %% 10 Checklists For Key
+Ww 24 30 Configuration Management Review Areas
. Mauisam . . D w .o.m i
Tier 1 Status _ Tier 2 Review Process: e .c ,i c ,i. - . . , e Review ali r5AR Ompler 14 Aralyses e ti . wi a., . ,s cor-.
... ,-. .> u ,4 . .. m .v
. :=,'1. _ ., c, ,s,,,,, <--*~+-->
+ - * * + -
ea ,,, u .., , , w. ., e beams 7m i Sr.um Bewwwe il 14 91 *
- M *wwgm* ennemus e ame 4.n temsnian w wtcetman so #* 't o Verify Active Compswnt Critical Design
. wececur canyme twtc.t==> 1s 6.pi tt Datacemstics that must emst to Surwrt One
- e in. Arw a Hrsi tapan ilseriet g,pg,, g 4 g,,9y,,,
. Eremerne . Ele mar Tier i statur, Tier 3 Review Process:
e Tsar 2 *chmAhst* idermfwe tTics f<w wwww b al on
- uw.seeryi=r an u .cv ,=*
- Inspection Sample Identified and Under
*nsN.en.).twc,*i.cm r ier.,, Review by the NRC e Idamry est sut iui to Nac syman coce f. Rev e Assess adequacy of CMP to identify &
- c=='a 6. K. 18 8* 't ccurect past change process configuration
- n=== c .i== r = a =*,y m os Ag o' management deficiencies
- Raeakgwel kausway a riud 7:ermords (18) 23 Aug 97 e 10 Change Proccases Categorized into 4 Functional Groups
. YV , . W--
Tier 3 Review Process: Tier 3 Status
+ Functional Groups
- P**" '"* *
- P"f"""*d b '*" #**" *
- cui NNECo CMP Sysicens Completwa e Schedule Daics:
+Engineerms , 5,,i, goi,,, 4 g, pac 33,,,,i :s toi, ,,
41nformation & Records
- Ragma hwne samle Dauveau 08 hs 97 Management
- Iw t canvdae 158'Pi'?
, e a cen ,w m co M is sein n
+ Parts Procuremeni/ Supply
. Req ==al w 2$=miee r is sain 97
+ Operations & Maintenarice
. D)mnanus . Demnea
e i ICAVP Support Activities Status WEB Site ! e Pwwas Web $sie on-law: 01 My 97 m o Pwams (mel Ohe Matulued et Mynd Aw:
+rw i ed d fw Sh Access 10 My n httP://www.parsonsicavp. net ; +1ninete Tier i We&down: 16 My 97 tessi, e Requests Fw Addka infm.nekte: W em h
- 179 meued bestup Cemenet laserensesse
'
- til Camp 6med (Damenes Lquod 1,435) Messing Aasennessmenes
^
e 31 op,. M4sw temsmarier e theerspency Repans issued 3 7% "" *
- . n-- . . e_.
4 4 4 4
% y .yw--,---p,w,- w--.7 + y
.,7yy,,,,,,,9, , , yg .,-q, , y
1 i i 4 1 i I
- i. OVERSIGHT OF MILLSTONE i
WORK ENVIRONMENT } Little Harbor Consultants l- Presentation to j Nuclear Regulatory Commission i 4 August 6,1997 Amgust 6,3 M4 hoeentauen to NRC Coen.l.lanm i 4 i ENVIRONMENT FOR RAISING j CONCERNS HAS IMPROVED i - Management expectations have been l communicated effectively i~ Yes 94% No 6% Workforce is willing to raise safoty concerns j Yea 100% No 0% '
~
4.g ., im n ais naC c. i. . : I a 4
. , _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ ~ .
l ENVIRONMENT FOR RAISING CONCERNS HAS IMPROVED
. Workforce has greater confidence that concerns will be resolved c.,,n .. .,,, c ,. .ui
,,,,,,,,,i.i.,,
,. . s.no . , ;
August 6, IM Fr,sentauen la MLC Cententadem ) l l l SAFETY CONSClOUS WORK ENVIRONMENT
"~"~""~~'
Existence of ,, Questioning i- ' Attitude: j ','
, , ~ , - . ,
impact of "Self-Assessment" on 48 % Yes 52 % No Workplace: August 4.1997 Pr,sentauea le NRC Comun!asioners 4 2
J t 1 l SAFETY CONSClOUS WORK i ENVIRONMENT i } Presence of Chilling Effect l Rate the ., a presence of a 3 44
*d chilling effect i no.
! at Millstone: j ro. " 19 , j " Year Ago" June 97 l i 4 = s, sen r,m.wo.. u ne c...i.a s l i ! CONFIDENCE IN EMPLOYEE ! CONCERNS PROGRAM GROWING ! Conf 6dence in Employee i Confidence that conc.,n. r or.m j using ECP will 1,',. u i result in s ie. resolution: j'. . r.,o ,.- u~n i Any reason you i would not use the 0 % Yes 92 % No
. ECP?
1
) AugW 6,19M r,mmuuee u MC Commladenm 6 i
i 3 ,
l l l i IMPROVEMENTS IN EMPLOYEE l CONCERNS PROGRAM Necessary resources have been 7 l provided for the program
. Enhanced program is documented in -
new ECP Manual
. Experienced contractors brought in to l support program implementation l
l ,
,,-i, ,, . . uxc c. ,
t DEFICIENCIES REMAIN IN ECP \ IMPLEMENTATION
. Staff qualification process has not been completed i Staff training is not yet implemented
. Lack of discipline and compilance with .
t the ECP Manual requirements i 37% of 27 employees who had filed a concern expressed dissatisfaction and
-M01 -
i 4
1 : i DEFICIENCIES REMAIN IN ECP l lMPLEMENTATION, cont'd l*
- ECP Intake process is not properly
{ prioritizing nuclear safety concerns and )- retallation issues
- . ECP database lacks data required to j provide meaningfulinformation to
- management -
) Management does not always recognize i presence of a hostlie work environment l , ,- i99, .. . .c c.. .n.., , i i i ! DEFICIENCIES REMAIN IN ECP j IMPLEMENTATION, cont'd j + Documentation in many case files is inadequate and not improving !' + intake and investigation of concerns often l performed inconsistently
- + Based on flie review, some cases l Improperly classified as resolved or closed I
53% of open concerns contain retallation
- issues
[ AgW 6,1997 Preseauben 4 MC C.mWW.ners le i 5
!!! jlt(lr ' ,! !!li; .!ll1' !
i iIil::i ki I?;:- G N I F E I 7 R e 9 B 9 n 1 N o t 6 O l s t I l s S i u S I M g u M A - M O
$e# C
$p
. ci +
c e
- n n M
- e %
! 0; S
' ! i ; ;i i !
.i:4 i ;i l!' ,!
- :- ~
l];
- i i
l OVERVIEW
- e Restart Assessinent Plan (MC 0350) i
\ l e Independent Corrective Action Verification Program (ICAVP) t 4 4 e Employee Safety Concems Program i j e Licensing issues i l e Schedule i i l l l < . ,
f [i
, . 1
/ : s ,
l -~ . i ! RESTART ASSESSMENT PLAN (MC 0350) l w independent Corrective Action Verification Program (ICAVP) w Employee Concems Program
~
i j i = Licensing issues ! e Corrective Action Program
- e Work Planning and Control !
I e Procedure Upgrade Program j
- e Quality Assurance and Oversight
! - Significant items List ! l e Operational Safety Team inspection
- e Enforcement 1
- Personnel Training / Performance e Public, State (NEAC), Local, Congressional, other agencies input
! f i e Staff Recommendation i i
i t
- SIGNIFICANT ITEMS LIST STATUS
! (As of July 16,1997) Unit 3 Unit 2 Unit 1 i ! Total Number of items 86 51 108 l I Submitted to NRC 34 21 0 . i i '. 4 ! Closed 23 - i a 4
- O
I . i :
~
1 ! ICAVP STATUS Activities Completed Since Last Commission Status Briefing !
- Approval of Sargent & Lundy Audit Plan for Units 1 and 3 i
g e Organizational Approval of Parsons Power as Unit 2 ICAVP
- Contractor e Approval of Parsons Audit Plan Unit 2 ICAVP o Completed Selection of Four Systems for Unit 3 ICAVP j (Two Systems Selected by NEAC)
!, e Selection of Two Unit 2 Systems for Parsons Review o NRC Inspection of Unit 3 ICAVP Implementation (in process) 4 ' ~ i ,
i 1 ICAVP UNIT 3 SYSTEMS , i
- Systems Reviewed by NU Configuration Management Plan 88 Systems l (Systems as Defined by the Maintainance Rule) '
i Systems Selected by NRC for Review by Sargent & Lundy e Tier 1 Vertical Slice Review 15 Systems [ 1. Service Water l 2. Recirculation Spray and Quench Spray including Refueling Water Storage Tank i 3. Auxiliary Building HVAC and Supplemental Leak Collection and Release System i
- 4. Emergency Diesel Generator and Support Systems
- Tier 2 - Limited Review of Accident Mitigation Systems (22 Systems) i j e Tier 3 - Historical Audit of Changes to Plant Configuration
- i .
i I
3
- O e 1
~
ICAVP STATUS
~~
i Activities Scheduled for the Next Three Months
- NEAC Selection of Two Additional Unit 2 ICAVP Systems i
l e ICAVP Implementation Inspection (Units 2 & 3) i j e ICAVP Out-of-Scope System inspection (SSFI) (Units 2 & 3) , l - i
- Unit 3 ICAVP In-Scope Inspection ;
i ; l w
i : ' L'i
; 2: 1: !
i i i, !
! EMPLOYEE SAFETY CONCERNS PROGRAM STATUS t i
l
~
Activities Completed Since Last Commission Status Briefing l \ l
- Met with the Public to Obtain input on Little Harbor Consultants (LHC) l Proposed Third-Party Oversight Plan i I :
1
- Interviewed Third-Party Organization Team Members i
i l
- Approved the Third-Party Oversight Plan i
i l
- Met with LHC and Licensee on Status and Results of LHC Activities i
l. i 4 + =
- I
!f
- EMPLOYEE SAFETY CONCERNS PROGRAM STATUS i
Activities Scheduled for Next Three Months
- Monitor the Licensee's implementation of Tneir Employee Concerns
! Program Plan and LHC Implementation of Third-Party Oversight Pian
- Meeting (s) with LHC and Licensee on Status of LHC Efforts and Licensee Response to LHC Findings i
- Initiate NRC Inspection of Licensee Employee Safety Concern Program l and Processes for Resolving Employee Identified Issues
- r o _
IJj tt ; 1 1. ! LICENSING ISSUES REQUIRED FOR RESTART
- Unit 1
- 1 Completed and Issued in 1997 i 4 Issues Currently Under NRC Review 1 Additional issue to be Submitted l Unit 2: 1 Completed and issued in 1997 8 Issues Currently Under NRC Review 7 Additional Issues to be Submitted
- I l Unit 3: 7 Completed and Issued in 1997 i 15 issues Currently Under NRC Review 1 4 Additional Issues to be Submitted i
l Additional Licensing Issues may be Identified as the Licensee Continues l Design Bases and Licensing Bases Problem Identification. V I - 1 l i A - s l'
I i {2 - i
, e . ~ t1 -
- PROJECT PLANNING SCHEDULE amLLSTONE UNIT 3 7t2W97
= s,Soor = 4 seer = 1, sees m 1.ise7 = 2,isoT samt Fwam m I rete i samr Aer i samr i Jun m I amari sep Ot2 l New 1 Osc Jun l Fgt> l ter O Ted*tsu.
1 CMP UNIT 3 9APLEDENTATON
- Gr3f98 7119 97 g_; w p.gg g z gwgc 3 2 BCAVP UNIT 3 BdPLEnENTATON" 5r27/57 10r257
! 3 NRCICAVP atSPECDONS 784W7 11/2997 4 MRC caw w+omCE REVEWf DOCUMENT tinN 122497 ff ;
j ~ s e:SPECDON PROGRM 2r14WT 10rtN 8 FEMA NOTFICATION Sf3a*7 == i N ! 7 EDAPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRA84 INSPEC 9r2957 10r1997 E 8 UCENSE MENDRAENTS 3 S 57 MF1N ; 9 OPERADONALSAFETYTEM #sSPECDON fortW MM7.97 j 18 RESTART ASSESSMENT PANEL REVEW 11/2557 12997 g i 11 EDOfDIR MRR BRIEF 12rt257 12712ff7 g 12 er=====rw SmErwoo 12rtee7 12nov7 . g i 13 POST-RESTART WSSPECDOM PROORABA 12r1997 3f31JW8 3 f
- Configuration Mar.agement Program (CMP) carried out by the licensee.
" ICAVP carried out by Sergent & t. undy contractor.
I t i
l h>
> c e 1i* ~
I PROJECT PLANNING SCHEDULE ! 3 tatisTONE UNIT 2 712491 l = 1,iser = 2,1esr airs. seer m e,1esr w i,ises e T aName samt Fedesi m I r.e I sa r mer l % 1 aim .ns I man I s. , oct I see. I one Jer. I r.e, I aner 1 CSAP UNIT 2 3dPLEMENTATCH
- SOSS 9 S 97 ,
a 2 SCAVP UNIT 2 9FLENENTATON ** 7/1M 11121M 4 3 NRC CAVP EMSPECTONS ST25F ESW98 g 4 1.W98 227J96 f NRC CAVP 944mCE REVIEWT DOCUMENT 3cSr 12ceGr i ! s iNsPEcTON PRooRams 1 i e FEMA NOTIFICATON 11117M 11129S7 ; i ' i 7 EMPLOYEECONCERNSPROGRAAs St$PEC Gr2WB7 10r10ST g i j UCENSE AnfEN0nAENTS Sc1M 11/25S7
. OeERATxmS-ETvTt S,ECTx. te 249. ; gg i
is RESTART ASSESSMENT PANELREVIEW 2r1998 2c758 E l~ 11 EDOOR NRW BRIEF 36S8 3498 l 12 couneSSON 881EMNG 3f1398 31395 g 13 PoSraEsTART o:SPECTx= PROGRM 313S8 80098 ; g
- Conrsuration Man *9ement Program (CMP) carried out by the recensee.
" ICAVP carried out by Parsons Power Group, Inc. contractor.
4 1
% 9 4
^
" - . },
.f . ll ...~ ! .l 1 l RESOURCES REQUIRED TO SUPPORT MILLSTONE RESTART EFFORTS -~ 'i i j 11/96 - 5/97 6/97 - 9/97 FY 98 11/96 - 9/98 i Projected ihjected TOTAL FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ FTE $ NRR
- 15.2 -
11.6 - 35.2 - 62.0 - Region I *
- 1.0 -
0.5 - 2.0 - 3.5 - Region II - - - - 1.2 - 1.2 - Region Ill - - 0.1 - 0.4 - 0.5 - l Region IV 0.3 - 0.3 - 1.0 - 1.6 - AEOD - - 0.1 - 0.4 - 0.5 - NMSS 0.1 - 0.2 - 0.7 - 1.0 - 1
$1.1M $759K -
$2.1M -
$4.0M Contractors - -
TOTAL 16.6 $1.1M 12.8 $759K 40.9 $ 2.1 M 70.3 $4.0M i
- Includes Region I staff detailed to NRR/SPO.
** Region I-based support not assigned to SPO. .
_, -, , , _ _ . . _, . . _ . . _ . . _ - - . _ _ _ _ _}}