ML17139C305
| ML17139C305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1984 |
| From: | Perch R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8404110245 | |
| Download: ML17139C305 (9) | |
Text
Docket No. 50-388 QRgp ~
APPLICANT:
FACILITY:
SUBJECT:
Pennsylvania Power 5 Light Company (PPSL)
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Unit 2
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD WITH PPSL AT THE SUSQUEHANNA SITE ON MARCH 8, 1984 REGARDING NRC MANAGE11ENT REVIEW IN PREPARATION FOR LICENSE ISSUANCE FOR UNIT 2 On March 8, 1984, representatives of the Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company met with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu-lation) to discuss the readiness of Susquehanna Unit 2 for an operating license.
A list of attendees is provided in Attachment 1.
A plant tour was conducted in three separate groups which observed and dis-cussed utility readiness in three specific areas:
(I) technical specifications, (2) safety/safeguards interfaces, and (3) maintenance.
The plant tour was followed by a presentation by PPtIL which covered the Unit 2 schedule, license
- status, work remaining to fuel load, Unit 1 operating experience, organization and staffing (experience).
Unit I/Unit 2 design differences, modifications for two unit operation, and pipe crack mitigation.
The presentation was followed by an operating shift demonstrating their ability to respond to an off-normal condition (power oscillation leading to a reactor scram) on the Susquehanna simulator.
There was only a few items needing resolution prior to licensing and none appeared to be on the critical path to readiness for fuel loading.
A brief summary of the specific discussions is provided in Attachment 2.
Qrigimlsigned gy R. L. Perch, Project Manager Licensing Branch No.
2 Division of Licensing Attachments:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
DWagner EHylton
- LPlesco, R-I RLPerch LB¹2:D LB¹2:DL RPerch:
ab ASchwencer 03/ M /84 03/~ /84 E
8404ii0245 840330 PDR ADOCK 05000388 P
~
A
~
~
h I A I
II
ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES MARCH 8, 1984 SUSQUEHANNA SITE VISIT NRC R. Purpl e, DL R. Russell, DHFS L. Rubenstein, DSI F. Schroeder, DST R. Perch, DL D. Wagner, DL R. i)acobs, SRI L. Plesco, Reg. I PPSL N. Curtis B.
Kenyon H. Keiser T. Crimmins W. 8arberich F. Eisenhuth R. Gaudreau, et. al.
l
ATTACHMENT 2 Special Discussion Topics 1.
Technical Specifications (R. Purple)
PP&L will provide certification of the accuracy of the Unit 2 tech-nical specifications, although the short time available precludes the formal review they would prefer to make for a certification of this type.
I suggested that the pre-licensing certification be made as requested, along with an ex-planation of the qualitative basis of that "certification", indicating that a
more formal and thorough review would be done and reported to the NRC prior to requesting authorization for operation at power levels greater than 5~.
There was an extensive discussion of the dif,erences that will exist in the Technical Specifications for Unit 1 and Unit 2 at the time of 'licensing Unit 2.
PP&L has evaluated these differences and concluded that they are not of a nature or extent that would be confusing to the operators or otherwise counter-productive to safety.
They plan to submit requests for amendment to the Unit 1
Tech Specs over the next several months to eliminate all unnecessary differences.
To accomplish that objective prior to licensing of Unit 2 would require an ex-tensive delay in the Unit 2 license issuance.
From my review nf the differences and discussions with PPEL (including a Shift Supervisor),
i acree with PPEL's view that this conformance is more administrative than substantive, and need not be completed prior to Unit 2 licensing.
I recommended s'.rc no';, however, that PPEL accelerate its present plans for submitting the-aooropr'ate Tech Spec amendment reauests for Unit 1 so that they could be in place prior to exceeding 5
of full power in Unit 2.
They agreed to put this effort on a
higher priority basis.
2.
Safety/Safeguards
'Interface (Les Rubenstein)
As part of our management
- meetina, as you requested, we split into three groups.
Bob Perch (LPM) and I met with R. Stotler, R. Gaudreau, T. Markowski and T. Baileys to discuss Emergency
Response
Capability with emphasis on Security/Operator interface and fire protection.
To be efficient in the approximately two hours available, I told the Plant Superintendent, Dave Smith, to talk me throuqh the procedure
<or evacuating the control room and setting up the alternate shutdown panel.
I did <<he same with R.
Gaudreau and R. Stotler, plant security.
I then did an ac ual walk-thr( uah with the Shift Supervisor for SSES-2.
All three groups wer~ knowledgeable in the procedure and when we actually assumed a fire in the control room and moved through the various safeouards security steps in the procedure, we were able to transit from the control room to the panel and simulate activation of the panel in less than ten minutes.
We actually used the non-emergency ke<< card system, with escort; although the "crash" procedure would probably cu; tha: time to under five minutes from when the decison was made.
This small sample and our other general discussions gave me confidence that SSES-2 is ready for an OL.
The attitudes of the people were professional and their responses to my questions displayed competence.
Overall, recognizing that this was a short visit and not a detailed
- review, I was favorably im-pressed and would rate their readiness from very good to excellent.
This includes my impressions of housekeeping, too.
3.
Review of Maintenance Program Implementation, Emergency Procedures and Control Room Design Review Status (W. Russell)
Discussed plant preventive maintenance, surveillance.and work author-ization procedures with emphasis on operations interface with maintenance and I8C personnel.
Reviewed Tag Out procedure and method of identification of plant deficiencies.
Operators do not log the commencement and completion of surveillance testing, rather they maintain active procedures in a file cabinet in the control room.
Similarly, Work Authorizations which impact eouipment line up or system availability are not logged.
This could be a problem in ensuring effective system turnover status at watch relief.
This
.item will be followed uD by the Resident Inspector,
- however, i. is not a licensing reovire-ment rather it relates to efficiency and efficacy of watch turnover procedures.
Observed 24 VDC battery service test in progress.
The Technician was using the appropriate procedures and was knowledgeable concerning the objectives and pro-cedures for the test.
Labeling and identification of plant mechanical equipment was poc r.
The, oper-ations supervisor, plant superintendent, and mechanical maintenance supervisor, plant superintendent, and mechanical maintenance supervisor could not identify the function or system for several randomly selected large valves in the tur-bine building.
While not a regulatory requirement, system color coding, flow direction arrows and use of noun name for valves and components would signifi-cantly improve system and component identification.
Procedures for swapping I8C components between plants is effective with PHs scheduled by plant location vice component serial number.
This may increase the PMs for some swapped components but will also assure that nn surveillance or PMs are missed.
The plant is moving toward predictive maintenance by using vibrat.on moni-toring on all large rotating equipment.
Baseline data is currently being obtained.
The plant has also obtained equipment for infra-red heat monitoring and is evaluating its use for terminal connections, insulation, etc.
Plant housekeeping is good with a significant e+~ort underway to oreserve and close out spaces in the Reactor Buildinq.
The status of closeout of DCRDR items needs to be resolved.
New instrumenta-tion (i.e.,
RG 1.97 and TMI modifications) have been received and recently installed.
These instruments have introduced new WEDs in the control room.
The use of an overall emergency procedure flow chart mounted on a 4' 5'ilt table with plexiglass provides the shift supervisor with an overview of all emergency procedures and their relationship.
This appeared very detailed and was commented upon favorably by the control room operators.
It's probably an effective tool if used in conjunction with the actual procedures and not in place of them.
Susquehanna Mr. Norman W. Curtis Vice President Engineering and Construction Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsyl vania 18101 ccs:
Jay Silberg, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts
& Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 Edward M. Nagel, Esquire General Counsel and Secretary Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsyl vania 18101 Mr. William E. Barberich Nuclear Licensing Group Supervisor Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsyl vania 18101 Ms. Colleen Marsh P. 0.
Box 538A, RD 84 Mountain Top, Pennsylvania 18707 Mr. Thomas J. Halligan Correspondent The Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers P. 0. Box 5
- Scranton, Pennsyl vania 18501 Mr. N. D. Wei ss Project Manager Mail Code 391 General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Mr. G. Rhodes Resident Inspector P. 0.
Box 52 Shickshinny, Pennsyl vania 18655 Gerald R. Schultz, Esquire Susquehanna Environmental Advocates P. 0.
Box 1560 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18703 Mr. E. B. Poser Project Engineer Bechtel Power Corporation P. 0.
Box 3965 San Franci sco, Californi a 94119 Robert W. Adler, Esquire Office of Attorney General 505 Executive House P. 0.
Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Dr. J u dith H. J ohnsrud Co-Director Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, Pennsylvania 16801 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania P. 0.
Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
17120
F'
~