ML19290E661
| ML19290E661 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290E662 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8003140347 | |
| Download: ML19290E661 (64) | |
Text
p' ~%,,
i iWr,)
%,,.y
.m.
UNITED STATES N UCLE AR R EG UL ATO RY COMMISSION In the matter of:
Briefing On Sequoyah Optrating License
(
PIoee:
Washington, D.C.
DQtG:
February 28, 1980 PQges:
1 through 63 INTiDtNAT ONAL V'2 BAT 1M REPem c x=. INC.
49 SCUT - CM tTCt. STREET. S. W. SUITE 107 W4.4(GTCN. D. C. 20002 202 '?' 3 9 bb } ' O 3g
~
"o I
t I
M y
MLGE NC.
i l
1 UNITED STATES I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
i 2
l I
j 4
i 3
l In the Matter of:
l l
Briefing On Sequoyah Operating License 6
I
____________________i 7
I 8
9 Room 1130, Eleventh Floor 10 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
l 1T Thursday, February 28, 1980 12 13 The Commission met, pursuant to call, for the 14 above-entitled matter, before the Chairman John F. Ahearne, 13 presiding.
16 j
BEFORE:
17 l
l JOHN F. AHEARNE, CHAIRMAN 18 VICTOR GILINSKY, COMMISSIONER 19 l
PETER A.
7RADFORD, COMMISSIONER I
20 RICHARD KENNEDY, COMMISSIONER
- 1 JOSEPH HENDRIE, COMMISSIONER 22 1
D l
1 24 t
16 i
i larTDueATICuaa. VEptsaTms h lanc
_7. _
seg seg O
y I '
PAGE M4 IV 70 I.
E3EEEEEIEEE 2/28/80 2
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
The Commission meets again on 2
a issue of rather substantial interest, not only for the 4
specific plant, but for the general issue.
This is on the 3
Sequoyah Nuclear Station.
It is my understanding that it is 6
in that past few weeks the Commission has met several times 7
on this; before I go much further on it, let me ask for a g
action required by the Sunshine Act, we are have a briefing 9
on Sequoyah Operating License and I would like to take a 10 vote to hold on less than one weeks notice.
11 (Whereupon, there was a chorus o ' ayes.)
All right.
12 3
I was not here at the previous two meetings; Commissioner Gilinsky Chaired it at that time.
My under-standing was that the Staff was told to continue itsi review, whatever the issues they believed were outstanding, and at that time tEgy felt that they had at least resolved the issues from their view to come to us with that resolution and presentation.
It is my understanding is therefore having received the request for this meeting, that the Staff is now prepared to do so, unless either Commissioners have comments.
22 Harold?
23 MR. DENTON:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
24 We are prepared this morning to recommend the 25 imm vaurm numer==. i.c m
te
C enaz na 1
issuance of a license for Sequoyah, this afternoon.
As you 2
know, we have been proceeding down the path of a stage process 2
to this license.
It would consist of a fuel load low powe.r I
test phase, rather a fuel load zero power test phase than a 4
I 5 percent power test phase and then authorization for power.
We have not completed our review of operation beyond the 6
operation of 5 percent power phase, and in fact, there are 7
still several outstanding issues to be resolved before 8
beginning the 5 percent test.
But, we have completed the 9
review for fuel load and zero power test.
And as the last g
item on today's agenda, I propose that we talk about the g
format of this authorization and the type of license that should really issue.
I have with me today the license,'for one format and we can convert it to license in other formats as we see 15 fit.
If I could have the first slide.
I will outline--the 14 second slide, please.
I will outline the topics that we would like to 18 cover today.
I will go over the progress since the last 19 meeting and the progress is that we have wrapped up all the 20 parts for the review that were" outstanding then.
We will 21 cover in some detail the results of the pressure vessel 22 nozzle inspection that we required be completed.
You may 23 recall that this pressure vessel was fabricated in Rodder 24 Dam and the French had found some problems with their vessels 25 sam am ve.um nmm,a s e I
ao scutne caen, stimerT. s. w. surft ser
C 3
pacz sa 1
and we wanted to be sure that this vessel did not suffer some 2
of those defects.
3 We will cover a little bit about the turbine 4
i inspection, a program of this licensee.
There is one 3
pipe well that we want to look at further, and we will go 6
into that further with you.
Also, I want to cover the 7
implications of the recent Crystal River accident, with regard to the loss of instrumentation displayed in the 8
control room.
This will not happen at this plant.
We will 9
10 g
ver the differences and designs between Sequoyah and Crystal River for you.
g There were also some questions raised about control I
room design that were in a letter that we received from a--
in that area.
I will also discuss the capability and the implications for ice condensers of evolution with large amounts of hydrogen and then, finally, at the phase we would be preapred to discuss the type of license that you would like to issued.
18 With that introduction, Denny Ross will begin the 19 presentation.
20 MR. ROSS:
The next " slide.
Since the last meeting, 21 we had closed out all of the near term OL items, and when we 22 get to the format of the license, you will see those items 23 appear again in the propcsed license itself.
24 When you say " closed amount"$
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
25 i
im== = v==r= moamme. sac.
se um,m cuma smart. a. w. surre ur
C PAGE Na 1
Denny, what are you saying?
2 MR. ROSS:
That our satisfaction at the--TVA has 3
provided commitments that meet the intent, are the words of the near term OL subset of the Action Plan.
4 They are documented in our SCR and also reprinted 3
in the proposed licenses.
We have three technical discussions,,
6 Harold mentioned.
The second line on the side concerns 7
the pressure vessel nozzle cracking, and we will start that 3
in just a minute.
And Jim Knight has six or eight slides 9
that will discuss the chronology and the work done by TVA i
and the Staff judgment.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Denny, if they have pro-vided commitments that satisfy you, why does the relief an' safety valve test item order the Tennessee Valley Authority to commit to carry out a testing program?
MR. KNIGHT:
Yes, sir.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why are you ordering them 17 to commit to do something that will have already satisfied 18 you?
19 MR. ROSS:
The research, itself, for the relief and 20 safety valve testing is a long'and complicated program that 21 could take up to a year and a half.
A lot of utilities are 22 going in with EPRI to do the research NEUREG 0578, the short 23 s
term lessons learned report, which first surface this problem 24 alway in vision that it would take a long period of time 25 i-- vo-m.
=m=== i c j
me soum c.arma. smarr s. w. surm 27
5
=
o pact sa 1
and the Action Plan clearly stated that what was needed at 2
this point was a commitment designing--constructing the 3
research facilities performing the test to do the analysis 4
took a long period of time.
Along the same item, the NRC 3
is proceeding side-by-side through research to provide some 3
of the redundant type test data.
A commitment was all that 7
was in vision at this time.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But, why would not for the 8
purposes of the license, you just order them to carry out a 9
testing program and let them furnish you with a commitment?
g MR. ROSS:
Well, I think we are in a matter of..
g style, not substance.
If we ordered them a license and they came back and said we discharge that function by commiting and laying out the program that they are going to participate in, there is no substantial difference, there is just a matter of style.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, but all of the other 17 conditions in the licensing, say TVA shall establish, shall 18 implement, shall provide, and on this one you say that they 19 shall commit to do.
20 MR. DENTON:
I think"what Denny is saying is he 21 was following exactly the words in the Action Plan 22 which required a co=mitment.
But, from my standpoint, 23 it could just as well read, shall carry out a safety valve 24 and relief valve test program.
25 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, provided the language mm van== stemmaa he ao ecufw c.wma, smerT. t w. su,rt m
6 C
pacz sc 1
allows perfectly reasonable option of people who have 2
similar interests in relief and safety valves to gather to-3 gether into a single, jointly fund--single test program.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, but you have that 5
concern whether you are requiring a commitment to do it or 6
whether you are requiring it to be done.
7 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
I think you might as well make 8
the change.
MR. DENTON:
All right, we will make the change.
9 MR. ROSS:
We mentioned the third item about the 10 turbine inspection that there should be one before we get 11 into the significant power production.
We will have a 12 discussion by Rodney Satterfield on the relationship of the g
Sequoyah design to the potential--for the Crystal River event of a few days ago.
The third technical discussion we propose this afternoon has to do with the ice condenser l
at Sequoyah with respect to hydrogeneration and mitigation measures should large quanitities be present.
Then we have also updated the safety--the supple-ment of safety evaluation.
That is our progress sinse our last meeting.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let us see.
We also talked 22 about augmenting the operators at the plant with Westinghouse 23 personnel experienced.
24 MR. ROSS:
Yes, sir.
The SRC reflects, the updated 25 a.m,
% vs n====. i.c.
l me scum cum lu. Fruusrr. s.w. sum m
7
=
o
,act sc.
1 SCR reflects the fact that there will be augmented experienced 2
people working on own-shift alone--
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you comment on that 4
i as you go through them, as you get to that point in the list?
3 MR. ROSS:
Yes.
We have some separate slides on 6
that subject that we can provide at the appropriate time.
7 Okay.
I would like Jim Knight to start in on the g
subject of the pressure vessel nozzle cracking.
MR. KNIGHT:
May I see the first slide, please?
9 Just a brief chronology of so-called under clad 10 cracking that has occurred through the years.
Going back to 1970 where a type of cracking was characterized as " reheat cracks" occurred.
These were cracks that resulted from the cladding itself.
And in 1972 the Kussmaul type cracks were cracks that occurred actually in the welds and then '79, the Framatone cracks.
l Just speaking broadly of all of this type of crackings, they are all very small, typically very small flaws.
The framatone type cracks were the largest of this 19 class that could be seen in this state.
Could I have the 20 next slide, please?
21 The brief chronology of how we got to where we are 22 today, here speaking to you on this subject, during this part 23 of the licensing process and starting in September when we 24 heard from the French that they had found these problems in 25 i - = venum.=====.i.e me stame camcm. rrner?, s. w. surfs wr
8 C
pacz Nc.
1 the Framatone vessels through the information memo that we 2
sent to the Commission, the internal Staff actually took place November 15.
The operating experienced memorandums, 4
the meetings with the nuclear, with United States Power, because the one vessel that had been fabricated Framatone 3
to was Prairie Island.
6 7
The consensus of the Staff being that the type of cracking that was experienced Framatone had been prohibited, g
if you, by processees which were inforced by U.S. manufacturers 9
that is much closer control over the heat input, during g
putting on the the application of the cladding.
g On December 13 there was a letter from Westinghouse that informed us that the vessels that had been fabricated 13 at Rodder Dam Dry Dock Company before Westinghouse, were under consideration.
This was based on a review that 15 Westinghouse made of the cladding processees, the control of pre-heat or the absense of post-heat and pre-heat while the cladding was being implied.
And I show here that February 6, the actual receipt of the January 31 letter, informing us 19 that the Watts Bar vessel had been examined and there were 20 a number of indications but not Framatone type of cracks.
21 We found a number of indications, themselves, somewhat dis-22 turbing.
Realizing that the UT, ultrasonic inspection 23 technique, being used here is a very sensitive technique.
24 Far more sensitive than that than the one that is normally 25 i
i m== = vs.=v moonreis.i.e
9 i
e l
pacz Nc.
i I
used.
But you would expect a number of small indications that 2
you might not see otherwise.
But, still it seemed less that there was enough'there to cause us to reconsider our previous g
l feelings that the vessels that we were concerned from the l
I licensing stream were all right.
And, I think, the references l
~
i the internal memo, written by myself, actually saying that we would--February ll, perhaps conclude that we ought to take 7
j a look at the Sequoyah.
May I see the next slide, please?
8 And on the 20th we had telecon with TVA to discuss 9
what I think that we can properly characterize, is a 10 l
confirmatory inspection.
At that time TVA had promised--
11 j
i well, they had looked at one nozzle and saw no Framatome 12 j
cracksf but they did see re-heat cracks.
If you remember that 13 first slide, re-heat cracks were something that we first say 14 back in 1070.
These cracks occurred at an intersection of 13 a strip cladding when it is applied to the nozzle.
14 l
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Jir, are you going to take a l'7 j
minute at some point to explain the difference between those i
18 two types of cracks?
l MR. KNIGHT:
Yes.
Perhaps, it is best to do it at I
20 l
this moment.
II CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
There might be a couple of I2 f
people who do not know the difference.
I l
22 MR. KNIGHT:
Okay.
I have some slide that are on--
l 2A perhaps--they are highly scamatic, but they will give a much I
f better feel for the type of cracking that we are talking about.!
i 3
i.mm.m:
vom m. e ic.
me e CAMfCL ST4RT. 3, e. Surft 187
i pacz sc.
10 l
l I
On the 22nd we met with TWA to review Srquoyah and 2
our conclusion based on their techniques that they were i
using, the results that they had seen to date, was that the 4
Watts bar vessel was just not a good enough sample.
The differences between vessels, even the nozzels of the same e
l Vessel are sufficient--can be sufficient enough so that 6
i 7
l prudence dictated, looking at looking at all the nozzles of j
Sq yah.
And that has been done and the record was filed on 8
the 26th, and we reviewed those reports and, as I will show you in a moment, a number of indications were found but all of a
them are well within the code allowed.
They perturbed some 11 People who were not familiar with the process to realize there 12 l
are such a thing as allowable cracks.
But, in fact, if they 13 i
are quite small, quite small crack are virtually unavoidable 14 l
l and items like major pressure vessels and years of experience 13 i
and analytical results, can demonstrate that they will not 16 l
grow during the life of the vessel and therefore they are 17
~
innocuous.
18 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
So with a 10-year inspection 19 program which might off hand, appear to be very long period.
I 20 You are saying it is adequate for this type of crack growth.
"1 MR. KNIGHT:
A very conservative estimate of the size of the crack and its growth rate would indicate the 23 absolute--maximum growth of the range is 4,000ths of an inch i
.d j
over 40 years, and such a growth is totally innoceous.
The i
U 10-year inspection interval is, as you say, may seem long, but
\\
l terreniam venaanan Repogrous tac.
I se sca,Me OMM:n. 57ME?. L w. si,fft ter
i pacz sc.
14 1
actually, it is quite conservative.
But it would tell you is 2
l you, in fact, saw some growth that was unexpected at that i
l date, it still would be very small, but if you did see it, it i
4 i
should be inspected at shorter intervals.
But it is simply l
1 e
i not a percipitist process.
It is a very long term process, if '
I in fact, you see any growth at all.
May I have the next, 3
please?
7 Just to put us in context, we are talking about the reacter pressure vessel nozzles, the roll of nozzles that you see just above the core, indicated on that slide.
And the next slide, please?
11 i
i It is a section of the reactor vessel with one of 12 the outlet nozzles circled.
A slight enlargement of the nozzle 13 itself.
And the slides that I will go to in a moment, we 14 i
I are going to look at the inside of that nozzle with the 13 l
surface cut flattened down and the indications will be shown 16 I
I there.
Would you move to the next, please?
17 i
Here is'where we can talk about the differences in 18 the cracking.
There is the inside surface of the nozzle, 19 I
which has been flattened out.
The line you see going from i
I 20 j
right to left, the horizontal line, right.back to--closest 21 to the reactor vessel side, indicates a point where two types I2 of cladding had been joined, the vessel cladding and the II cladding of the nozzle itself had been joined by using a 2#
j manual stick, a electro welding technique.
It was at that 15 point, where the so-called re-heat crack ing occurred.
If'you i i
i 1.rro 4% voiman= ptsyom,a i r.
me sca,rw e.aema rmst. s w. surre es?
.=
a_,. c
12 4
C PACr NJ.
I right-hand corner, there is an enlargement of that section.
2 And you will see a number--a very small--linear indications a
running perpenducular to the line of the welding.
This is 4
classic of the so-called re-heat cracking.
It occurs when e
i you lay a second bead of weld over an initial bead, which is i
cool, and in fact,,you bring the surface just under the 6
7 cladding up to an unfortunate metallurgical temperature, and g
you will get this small cracks on it.
I said it has been 9
reviewed at great length over the years and that type of cracking found to be innocuous.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why was this thought worthy 3
of notice to the French reactors.
Was it--had it shown up g
in more serious form there?
MR. KNIGHT:
No.
This type of cracking, this is a so-called re-heat crackingp this not what showed up at Framatone.
We started off with a concern for the Framatone problem.
The first nozzle inspected at Sequoyah did not show the Framatone type cracking, but it did show this which most people reacted to do saying well, okay, we know of that type and that is relatively innocuous.
20 MR. DENTON:
This nozzle does not show Framatone 21 type cracking, but we were not sure it was represented.
22 MR. KNIGHT:
Okay.
Let me see the next slide, 23 please.
24 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
You are going to get to the 25 i.,-ar vaura. m =rs= i=.
.m,r= cumi, marr. s. w. surre =
f 0
13 i
pacz sc.
1 Framatone cracking to answer--
2 l
MR. KNIGHT:
Yes.
And I will do it with the next i
two slides, and then perhaps just a bit of discussion.
This was one of the other-- this was next to the worse 4
i l
nozzle; there is others to be looked at.
Unlike the single 3
n zzle that had been reviewed before, there was nc sign of 6
7 re-heat cracking.
But, rather there was this random pattern 1
l of indications and each one of those little couses (?) repre-8 sents a small crack detected by ultrasonic methods laying just I
under the cladding.
And this random pattern is more typical 10 j
than the Framatone type cracking.
11 i
l j
In the final analysis, one would say, well, why is 12 l
a Framatone crack different than a re-heat crack?
If you get i
13 right to the guts of the matter, there is not difference.
14 I
They are both cracks and they are cracks in the surface in th 13 the heat effective zone, just under the cladding.
The question 16 l
is the process, how did the cracks occur, why did they occur, i
17 i
and do you know enough about that process, do you know enough 18 about the phenomena that is occurring so that you have 19 i
confidence that this--they.are small cracks, they are a l
20 l
category or classified type of crack.
Okay, let us see the
.I next slide, please.
22 And this was the worse nozzle.
I said that.
The U
other nozzle that I showed you was the next to the worse.
24 j
This is where there were a large number of these indications, I
3 It is our opinion, at least, theopinionofmanymembersofthE l
ice-.= ve rio m ic
.__c i
pact
.*c _14 O
l 1
1 Staff, it is typical of the Framatone crack.
2 l
Now the cracks found by Framatone were larger and i
3 that could be from a combination of things.
Just that the--
4 I
it could be the particular cleanliness of the steel of the 3
nozzle forging.
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
By larger, do you mean the order 6
of magnitude?
7 I
MR. KNIGHT:
No, the largest crack found here was I
i measured at around 5/8 of an inch in length.
Some of the I
Framatone cracks were 3/4 of an inch to perhaps a little over an inch.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
How deep?
12 MR. KNIGHT:
Not--the process--the ultrasonic l
13 process cannot give y'! a direct reading of depth.
But, it 14 is pretty difficult to imagine a crack that is any deeper 13 than you would find if you ^-ke a given length and you then 16 make a semi-eliptical (?) crack.
That would give depths here 17 in the order of tenth of an inch, a little over a tenth of 18 an inch.
19 l
MR. DENTON:
No deeper, I take, Jim, than the depth i
20 of the heat effected zone right under the cladding.
MR. KNIGHT:
That is correct.
The phenomena is 22 limited.
Again, that is why I made a point about it is im-U portant to under the phenomena, it is important to understand 24 what cateogory of cracking that you are talking about here.
t I
23 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
But, you are saying that you
C i
nct Nc.
16 l
1 ended finding both re-heat and Framatone type cracks.
2 MR. KNIGHT:
The cracks, even in this nozzle are i
showing, because of the size of these, they are all within I
4 l
the code allowable limits--
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
But as far as the terminology of 3
l the type of crack, you did find--
6 MR. KNIGHT:
Both types of cracking--
7 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
So both are regular ones with this random distribution?
9 i
MR. KNIGHT:
Yes.
And, again, as I said, as it gets- -
l as the essense of the question gets to size, once you understana 11 where the process is, api I feel'we do and then we can examine 12 the size of the cracks as we did and preclude quite properly 13 that the growth.during the surface life of the vessel, even 14 given a very conservative look at the transient that might IJ occur.
16 l
I think we have just two more slides that go a 17 j
little further into the definition of a crack, and I do not 18 think it is worth while, unless there are any questions.
19 I
MR. DENTON:
Why don't you go to the one on the i'
20 Framatone.
MR. KNIGHT:
All right.
What have you got next as m
a slide?
There is a redundancy in this package.
Yes, take i
23 that down and bring up the next one.
2#
MR. DENTON:
Why don't you just describe it?
j 23 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Why don't you just forget it?
I i
iero ve=mari mmerois. lac.
l punt Nc l
l l
1 MR. KNIGHT:
It is in the package; it is a slide that 2
characterizes the source of the so-called Framatone crack that results as no pulse from the--testing from a no pulse weld 4
i heat treatment.
That the first weld deposit was made with the usual pre-heat and post, remember, now, we are talking cladding e
6 n w, a thin layer of stainless steel laid on the surface of the l
7 j
vessel and the nozzle.
And that the first weld deposit is I
made with a usual pre-heat and post-heat but if the suceeding pass or passes are performed without pre-heat, our post weld heat treatment and they are confined--these cracks are confined I
i to the heat effective zone, they are produced by the second 11 l
layer of cladding, and they are generally characterized as 12 a cold cracking.
13 The slide goes on to say that the presence of a 14 induced hydrogen during processing are manganese inclusion or 13 carbon segregation, contributed factors, that might follow as 16 l
a metallurgical new ounces (?).
17 In the final evaluation they said your concern has 18 to be based on the size of the crack that is there, your 19 understanding of the growth mechanism, which I think are Io commited over the past two year.s to standard practice and the 21 finding that you will not see.
MR. DENTON:
We cover this in some detail because 23 there are number of vessels fabricated in that same shop that I#
l we will be considering in the future, too.
t CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
I gather as far as this issue of I
NM Y
t
c 18 pacz we.
1
- 9-heat type cracks, that is something that you are familiar i
2 l
with, as the first slided indicated back in the early '70s.
3 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
4 l
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
So, you have seen them in some other vessels that you--
~
i MR. KNIGHT:
Yes, a number of others.
Each time 3
we evaluate each vessel.
7 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Have of those vessels gone through long enough operations so that when you have had a 10-year inspection?
10 l
MR. KNIGHT:
No sir.
g 11 l
^
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Any of the vessels that you 12 know of have been re. inspected to varify this prediction 13 about cracks?
14
}
l MR. KNIGHT.
There is no--there has been--perhaps 13 I do not understand the question.
16 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
The question is that you seem te 17 Pg w that some vessels have the re-heat cracks in them?
18 MR. KNIGHT:
Yes, sir.
19 i
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
And your point is that it is l
20 a very small crack, and the understanding of the reasons for II it being there, you feel are fairly well understood that the U
crack growth rate, your prediction is, is very small; therefore, 23 the 10-year cycle is adequate.
And my question is do we have 24 any pressure vessel that has been put into operation where it 25 I
started out with cracks and that ther
'as been a re-check at I
i-= v==n
===r==. iac.
m C
i pacz sc.
19 !
I 1
l some X period after it?
l 2
MR. DENTON:
There have been vessels which have 1
undergone a 10-year inspection, but I am not usre whether any 4
i of those were identified as having re-heat cracks in the first i
e place.
I
~
MR. KNIGHT:
That is right.
And there is a second 3
consideration there that some of the cracks are so small that 7
l the inspection techniques would not have seen them.
That goes g
with your question as this:
re-heat cracking is not only just applied to nuclear cracking, you see them in petro-chemical--
11 I'
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Any time you have a large--
12 j
MR. KNIGHT:
Large vessel of this type, vessels of this type with known re-heat cracks, have been in service, 14 in strenuous service for years without--and that is the 13 background as given in confidence and that one might call I
16 l
innocuous' of that type of cracking to my knowledge and I 17.
do not believe that there is any on the record there is failure 18 or even leakage results from this type of cracking.
19 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
All right.
Any questions?
20 MR. ROSS:
To cover the conclusion, the letter we 21 sent today had a brief statement in the cover letter that the 22 flaws were acceptable from our standpoint and under current i
Il Commission requirements, but will require periodic monitoring I'
and we included a three-page plus in reference supplemental i
I 23 evaluation which we will put--issue as some supplemental SCR.
l
{
i.,re
= v a m m. nu m er= =. i.c I
g 20^~T
=
g Pact Nc.
f f
I i
l t
.1 l
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
They did mention that the l
luke one outlet nozzle was the one where it was, I guess the l
thin wall section--
l 4
i MR. KNIGHT:
Yes, the safe end area.
l CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
How thick is the wall there l
~
l compared to your prior testament, I think, you said perhaps 6
7 two-tenths of an inch deep.
MR. KNIGHT:
The best estimate--
MR. ROSS:
The answer is right on the slide.
MR. KNIGHT:
Ron Gamble?
10 MR. GAMBLE:
Three inches.
11 l
MR. KNIGHT:
Three inches at that point.
MR. DENTON:
Let us move next to a component that 13 we expect not to crack but are inspected.
Next slide, please.
14 MR. KNIGHT:
Very briefly, we will require that there 15 l
be a turbine inspection prior to power production before the 16 I
l end of--
17 i
i MR. DENTON:
There has been such an epedemic of 18 l
terbine cracking, we wanted here to look'just where the turbine 19 goes into operation and the licensee agree to it.
.'0 l
MR. ROSS:
This would.be true to the other near-term OL plants that you will be seeing later on this year; it m
is not just Sequoyah item.
Next slide.
I f
U MR. KNIGHT:
Slide, please.
I#
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That is a Westinghouse turbine at Sequoyah, as I remember.
3 O
~......
i pacz sc.
l 1
MR. DENTON:
Yes, it is.
2 l
MR. KNIGHT:
It is an item concerning a pipe repair that was made on a pressure line--pressurizer leak line.
And 4
l it is a matter of interest today, primarily because following l
additional Staff review, to the satisfaction of the team e*
i working on that matter, additional questions were raised 3
within the Staff as to the certainty of acceptability of 'he 7
repair.
Let me give you just a little bit of a background.
This was a pipe that was off the top of the pressurizer and it is prior to the pressurizer relief valve.
During the high functional testing a pipe support, movable if you will or 11 l
snubber, or type support, malfunctioned when the plant heated f
12 up and the pipe was bent.
In order to maintain the loop-seal 13 of that pipe, it was designed to be horizontal, the line of 14 the pipe, and it was found necessary to restore it.
The 13 manner of restoring it was to use a so-called draw bead 16 l
technique, a groove, in this case, two grooves and they are 17 j
i cut in the pipe and they are filled with weld metal.
They are la I
not cut all the way through, in this case, they were cut 19 I
two-thirds the way through the wall ground out 270 degrees l
20 l
around the pipe.
They are filled with weld metal and the 21 weld metal shrinks and causes the pipe to move.
The question here is one of whether or not you caused unacceptable s
~,
i l
sensitivization of the stainless steel in that pipe by the
~
24 heat input into the welding.
A team from the Staff has review it.
It has been reviewed by our consultant interviewer',
- =
~
I i
l m % v
- m. % w l
=
i
l mact e.c.
l l
}
1 people from I&E, and said the consensus was that it was an 2
l acceptable process.
The critical part was carried out in such I
a way that you could not have acceptable sensitivi7ation in 4
1 the material.
l The questions which have raised are detailed e
I l
metallurgical questions which I would characterize as borrowing 6
I on a rather clasic of differences of opinion you might get i
7 l
l between metallurgist as whether this test is a good test or that test is a good test.
Whether indeed you have seen enough.
Each given individual has seen enough to be really i
satisfied.
tie felt here that prudence dictates those 11 questions be answered.
And we have Staff metallurgists 12 who have the questions go down to TVA to examine the 13 metallurgical samples and satisfy ourselves that all the 14 branches of the problem are being covered.
13 l
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
I gather from the way that you 16 I
l have described it, I guess that there are some people in the 17 Staff who are not satisfied with the welding technique or--
18 l
MR. DENTON:
Let me say there are some differneces 19 of views among the members of the Staff.
What we are having l
20
{
done is some of the members with different views are going to the site or relook at the data--
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Fine.
That is what I was getting to.
Will those individuals, at least, will be involved.
I I#
j MR. DENTON:
Absolutely.
They will relook at the j
i i
M l
data and relook at the weld and it is a type of issue which i
il twTsusa47tCzeaa. VUumanas Remyrttput leeC.
I ase scatfte caerTta. STsutrf. E er. sufft 'O
. _ ~
i pacz Nc.
I apparently can be fixed by propoer re-heating of the weld, if 2
that is the term to be necessary.
So while it is an issue i
of one that we have to follow up on, I do not see it as a 4
l barrier to the issuance of an authorization.
That they could l
be remedied, if re-heating is necessary in place.
Maybe you e
w uld want to speak, Jim, to the remedial type measures for--
l 6
I and it is not concerning ths welds, as I understand it, but the!
7 f
metal that was not welded and the exact metallurgical state of that part of the pipe and whether is sensitized or unduly sensitized or whether it aas to be re-heat treated some time.
10 MR. KNIGHT:
That is correct.
If the grooves are 11 t
I not cut all the way through the wall but the welding process 12 will, of course, heat the walls, the concern was that the 13 inter surface of the pipe might have been brought to an 14 i
j unfortunate temperature range.
Some special corrosion tests 1.5 were run, a mark-up was built and we tried it first on the 16 i
mark-up.
Some tests were run and it is my view, at least, it 8
17 i
l seems to be largely a matter of the interpretation of those 18 tests, the feeling that they were properly interpreted.
19 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Now, can the--whatever I
2e examinations required, retest or whatever your people are 21 going to do, can that be done if the plant is going through m
this low part?
23 MR. KNIGHT:
Yes, if in fact should be deemed it 24 I
necessary to take corrective action, it could be done anytime f
the plant is in the--
13 I
larvens 4% Vesaanes Remyrrwes leuc.
I' me scame w
t
k I
24T
=
I sacz sc.
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Well, it is not so much to asking 2
l whether the corrective action to be taken, can the test be done?
l MR. KNIGHT:
No.
The tests are metallurigical laboratory test on samples that are already available.
j CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
I see.
i
~
l MR. DENTON:
So I have not made a decision on the 6
i
~
I merits of whether this metal needs a change or additional I
treatment or not and would propose not to make a decision 3
until the team returns again.
But, since it is possible to do 9
l it during this phase of the fuel load, I do not see it as a 10 barrier to issance.
i 11 i
I This concludes Jim Knight's presentation, unless 12 there are further questions for him.
13 MR. ROSS:
Let us go to the next slide.
14 i
l MR. DENTON:
While we are setting down, I will 13 l
mention that we discussed yesterday, the Bulletin that was 16 I
j issued regarding the diverse power sources for control room I
l instrumentation.
We have looked specifically to see how I8 Sequoyah is arranged with regard to power supplies for in-19 i
strumentation in the control room and Ron will discuss the 20 results of that.
Il MR. SATTERFIELD:
I wanted to cover the first four 22 bullets there, cover just a few item on the Crystal River 23 within itself.
As you know the Crystal River event was l
24 initiated by power failure in a eye cabinet.
N&I provides f
input to the ICS--
l 15 i
imum % vous n mm,rrou. i c I
aus sen,ne caPTO. ETittrT. & w. suf?T 187
. _ ~
-- i pacz Nc.
I CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Intergraded control system.
i 2
l Some people might not--
1 l
MR. SATTERFIELD:
Intergraded control system and l
4 j
also provided information to the control room display.
The l
intergraded control system uses the information from the 3
l n n-nuclear instrumentation.
The cabinets put together with 6
other information to control the reactors to control the 7
l turbine, and to control the feedwater flow.
The N&I failure 3
failed a number of the displays in the control room and that was one of our real concerns as far as instrumentation was 10 concerned.
That hindered the operator's ability to monitor 11 I
l the status of the plant after the event.
!2 The Sequoyah design is considerably different.
13 Westinghouse uses the outputs of a single reactor protective 14 channel for control purposes.
But, in the control room all 13 j
of the outputs of the reactor protective system are displayed, 16 I
it is all the critical perimeters that come out of that 17 channel.
So that no single failure or a single can initiate 18 i
a transient, but it cannot disable the other three channels 19 that are displayed in the control room and we believe that is l
0 l
the very important characteristic of the Sequoyah design.
^
I have listed on the slide a number of the perimeters that are I2 displayed from all of the fort (?) of the reactor protective l
IU channels.
The include steam generator level, steam line l
Id pressure, feedwater flow, primary loop, Delta T or change of i
i temperature, the primary coolant flow rate, pressurizer level l 23 I
incomam voemario atanrom lac de SDhfrW C4FTER. 57 MET, & w. Suf7E ISP
I pacz sc.
97 I
in the pressure, and refueling water storage tank level.
I I
think the bottom line is that whi e a single failure in the 1
2 power supply can indeed initiate event in a plant like I
Sequoyah like it can in most plants.
There is a fair amount 4
l 3
l of redundancy as far as instrumentation is concerned in the i
l control room.
6 7
l Questions?
Next slide, MR. DENTON:
The next slide resulted from the g
9 comment, Commissioner Bradford, you provided us a list that identified a number of deficiencies in the Sequoyah control 10 room on the basis of a review that was done last summer.
g
. MR. SATTERFIELD:
We received this memo late yesterday afternoon, and it list nine human factor deficiencies in the sequoyah control room.
We discussed these deficiencies with both TVA and with our contractor, Essex.
Essex is the contractor that helped us in doing the control room design 16 l
review that was performed earlier this month.
Five of those 17 l
deficiencies were corrected promptly.
!8 l
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Corrected promptly 19 yesterday or corrected promptly--
l 20 l
MR. SATTERFIELD:
Not Four of the deficiencies 21 were corrected prior to the time that we made our visit.
22 MR. DENTON:
TVA apparently had this information i
23 l
for some time before we did.
I 24 l
MR. SATTERFIELD:
Yes, they got it in the middle u
~
of July and they had taken some action.
There was three itemd I
i-= v -~ % i.
I se 901.frbe CAFTCn. STurEZ?, & w. surTT 157 i
pacz.we.
?o I
that they did not correct.
They were items that--
2 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Peter, is that your--
i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
I 4
l CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Was that an EPRI consultant?
l 1
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let us see.
An EPRI consultant originally or a TVA00 6
l i
MR. SATTERFIELD:
It was my understanding with 7
talking with TVA that the consultant for EPRI is come down--
is fellow from MIT who has written an article on control room 9
i i
design, human factor deficiencies which all these deficiencies 10 l
were included in by him.
11 Going on, there were three itens that were not 12 corrected immediately because of TA's concern that they might l
some negative impact on the operater.
These deficiencies 14 l
l wtre also identified by the Staff Essex Group that went down.
15 These include--
l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
When did they go down?
17 MR. SATTERFIELD:
Early this month, the first week 18 I
in February.
They include the arrangement of displays pro-19 l
viding neutron flux information.
The problem with uncoordi-20 nated use of colors on pen recorders for steam generator water 21 level; finally there was some concern about labelling and
~,
positioning the safety valve injection--the safety injection l
I 23 valve controls.
Again, these were all items that we had 2#
l l
found and we I breifed you on our review a couple weeks ago l
4 i
U I indicated that there were certain items which were to be l
]1 me soutw caMTc6 STutsrf. s. w. surre ter
macz sc l
l Ii -
1 j
corrected immediately, other items which we corrected later.
2 l
These fall into the later category.
We should receive from i
l TVA the first of next month, excuse me, the first of April, l
4 l
some commitment from them on when and how they plan to correct l
8 i
these deficiencies.
l
~
CHAIRMAN ADhEARNE:
I. wonder if you could explain j
3 one point.
Now you say that three items were not corrected 7
immediately due to possible negative impact on operation.
The plant was not in operation back in--
I MR. SATTERFIELD:
The operation was in training then.
I think that in fearance, TVA made a judgment that the value i
11 l
~
to be gained from making some of'the modifications probably 12 were not worth the effort.
13 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Changing the colors of pens?
14 MR. SATTERFIELD:
In some cases a temperature a L5 hot leg temperature was indicating--
16 I
l CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
No.
I read the points, I am 17 i
just--
18 MR. SATTERFIELD:
Well, we came to the same con-19 I
clusion that they really ought to be changed.
i MR. DENTON:
And they.have agreed now to make the 21 I'
change.
I MR. SATTERFIELD:
The final item had to due with the 22 numbering of feedwater heater controls.
The feedwater heaters 2d l
are lined up in such a way that the feedwater comes in cold j
i i
15 l
one end and goes through a number of heaters and comes out i
l l'
\\
ice==% vomanu Rumerna Nc.
j i
me sQLfne C.aMTta. Frutt1'*.1 er. suffT 19
a w
I 30 nacz No.
I hot the other end.
The feedwater heat--the heat supplier--the 2
heat source for the feedwater heater is re-heat steam.
The steam comes on it in at the other end flows the other way.
l The feedwater heaters happen to be numbered in accordance 4
with the way the steam flows instead of the feedwater.
I am e
not sure that the individual here will recognize that.
I 6
thinkcnenumberingsteamforthefeedwaterheaterisperfectlyl l
7 l.
l acceptable.
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You are really going to have i
them change that now?
10 i
MR. SATTERFIELD:
No.
What we have asked TVA to do 11 l'
is to adddress the deficiencies ~that we found, they plan to do 12 that with a letter to us--
13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Because as I remember those 14 things, they are set up.in the right way.
MR. SATTERFIEID:
They certainly present to us--
14 i
COMMISSIONER HENDRlE:
You got the level stuff 17 on one side and the rate stuff on the other and the sensitive 18 range where you come critical, the source range.
You got 19 the level and the rate channels two here, two here, and two I
l in the center.
And I do not see a mucr better arrangement 21 than that frankly.
That is, it seems to me that there are all 22 kinds of permutations of that arrangement, but I find that 23 with my own practice, that the one they have got is'as 2d j
reasonable as any.
I f
25 MR. SATTERFIELD:
I am sure that if TVA makes that istftpisaanopeaa. Veumanen Rspourfwes, leic I
ase sca,fw carrfoi, sTutzz?. s. w. surft to 1,
pacz sc I
judgment they will certainly organize it.
And, I think, there i
2 are a balancing of judgments that we are going to have to make t
in the future about whether or not these things have to change.
4 l
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, the pen colors, that is one I think would be used to be addressed.
3 MR. SATTERFIELD:
Yes, it would be.
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I felt it was one of those 7
a i
things which challenges your instincts and you judge the n-3 operators of how rapidly they can build their intuitions on whether No. 4 red is hot or cold.
10 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
That is perhaps not the kind of 11 i
challenge that you should be concerned about.
12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think that that is much of 13 j
the point of the human factors engineering effort to not make 14 l
l those challenges.
But the flux instrumentation is a oeasonable enough array.
I6 l
MR. ROSS:
We would like to go onto the presentation l'7 i
l sequenct--
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me address one other 19 question about that.
I take it that you have also concluded 20
~i that nothing that would happen.between now and April 1, would make it any more difficult to make whatever corrections.
That 22 is obviously true of the pens.
II MR. ROSS:
Yes.
Okay, I wanted to put something in d
I l
your presentation sequence a little bit out of order.
Since i
i 23 we are on the control room, get Bill Cottell to come up, he is i
e-no vo
- n. w i c I
me scune caw?ts. 371 af, s w, surft it7
32 i
pacz sc f
I l
resident inspector.
2 There is two matters.
In the letter that we sent 2
l you today there is a license condition, it is on Page 4 of the 1
4 I
proposed license and it is license condition 4C.
And of the l
e subject of 4C of shift manning, we note here that the TVA I
I shall provide an additional senior reactor operator on the 6
i shift, and this is addition to what is in Table 521 of the 7
1 technical specifications.
I 1 lieve that last time we were 3
down here, we were talking ab it the near-term OL item of 9
two operators in a control room.
That is the response to that,.
I and TWA has agreed to that.
11 l
The other matter on the control room operators that we talked about just a minute ago had to do with the augmentation during the start up and low power tests and I 14 want Bill Cottell to talk about that.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, there arose from 16 f
the fact that only two or three of the TVA operators that I
17 ever operated in a nuclear power plant--
18 MR. ROSS:
That is what Mr. Cottell is going to 19 speak about.
20 MR. COTTELL:
That was one of the findings that I 21 managed on it, TVA cooperated in, particularly the Sequoyah site.
It I could have the slide marked Tall Collin No. 1 (?).
f Okay.
In an effort to increase the actual operating 24 l
experience available on sight, TVA has made several changes
-e to their shift organization in the form of augmenting personnel.
I I
i cromam voimm m meros i c.
lj
== sca,rw cas smurr. s. w. an in
5 nacz sc.
33 1
I would like to start, now, at the bottom.
We had one concern i
2 that the operation supervisor of the plant staff had relatively i
3 little experience in regard to PWRs.
TVA has brought in an 4
l individual with nuclear start up services incorporation with l
some 17 years experience, previously licenses in two large l
~
PWRs and two smaller PWR plants and in addition some 12 years 6
i l
of initial start up and operating experience in plants.
7 l
This individual will act essentially as operations supervisor assistant with an overall management in fuel loading and test referral.
I feel that that is an adequate augmentation 10 in that resp ect.
i 11 l'
For the concern of inadequate experience on part of 12 the shift personnel, we move to the middle portion of the 13 slide.
TVA has. bro.ught in individuals from nuclear services 14 i
l incorporation who will act in the own shipt capacity, advisor 13 f
ro the senior reactor operator.
It is not the shift technical 16 I
l advisro, this is in addition to the licensee shift technical 1:7 l
advisor.
18 There is a summary of the experience of those 19 I
irdividuals; they have all been licensed with PWR type plant 1
20 l
and for the most part participated in either start up test 21 programs or extensive experience in re-fueling and low power m
testing programs.
22 In addition to that, the shift will be augmented 24 at least for the fuel load and zero power test portlon of the l l
l 3
l program trat they are now approaching by Westinghouse i
~
i i-= ve.vi e i e.
]
se semirse cum:n.
- w. surft te?
C
=acz sc.
1 engineers.
The slide shows the special augmentations support 2
l from Westinghouse, that is not a loading for each shift, that i
is the approximate total number of the special Westinghouse 4
l engineers that will be brought in.
In addition to that there l
3 will be some Westinghouse assistants engineers.
Such that I
6 there will be shift coverage by Westinghouse personnel as well.
We feel--
7 CHAI1 MAN ADHEARNE:
Well, the nuclear services that group in the middle, there will be one in each shift?
MR. COTTELL:
One on the shift.
10 I
l MR. DENTON:
I plan the satisfactory in compensation 11 l
l in this case.
The next few plants that will come along will 12
.i i
be operating plants, where we will not face this issue of 13 a fresh crew without operating experience and I will try to 14 readdress this issue by the time we face another plant that IJ l
does not have a prior operating experience.
I think that you 16 l
have raised a good concern and, in fact, in recent order on 17 l
Indian Point, you may recall, that we required that the the 18 beginning and mid-year, all the new candidates for SRO must 19 8
at least have some experience in ROs.
20 l
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE I.hink we will want to return 21 to ths point wren we discuss going to full power.
U MR. ROSS:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think we will want a report 2d on--
~
MR.
ENTON:
Well, my thought of a full power I
4 me sen,ne e.
se
ucr se. _ _
I consideration would involve a review of a plant's procedures 2
and the performance of the operators and take a whole listic view toward the entire operation during the low power program.
4 We certainly include this as part of that.
3 l
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
You might even consider dis-6 cussing with TVA the possibility of getting some operators 7
full time with previous experience.
l MR. DENTON:
Yes.
g CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Could I get a copy of this memo?
9 MR. DENTON:
Certainly.
MR. ROSS:
Anything else that the resident could il i
l help you with?
12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I assume you will be working 13 all three shifts during the start up period, Bill?
14 l
MR. ROSS:
The overtime text spec does not apply to 13 l
the resident.
I 16 l
MR. DENTON:
Well, that is good that you should 17 i
mention that we do have some help.
18 l
MR. COTTELL:
We do have a second resident inside 19 I
now and he is almost completed his training propram.
In l
20 l
additon, for example, the fuel. loading we will probably have 21 two regional inspectors up out of the Atlanta office and will
~
cover at least a portion of each shift, Dr. Hendrie, a5 1
l MR. ROSS:
The next subject we discuss is the
~
I a4 I
j hydrogen implication for th;; type of ice condenser contain-l a
ment.
The Staff supplemental evaluation report in Section II I
)
innm.4 % vm n= m m c as.i e.
me tanw e
N?
l pacz sc.
C 37 1
Paragraph B7, under the subject Containment Inerting, does 2
provide a discussion and, I believe the Commission has re-2 cently received a memorandum from Mr. Denton on the subject l
of a proposed hydrogen control requirements.
What we see t
i 3
l as far as Sequoyah is concerned and as far as low power Pei ' ion is concerned, is that hydrogen is almost essentially 6
l I
a non e cofit.
It you do look in advance, a 100 percent 7
l I
l operation you can be more specific.
Before--
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let us see.
You are saying 9
i i
it is a non-problem at this point?
10 i
t i
MR. ROSS:
5 percent operation.
I believe when 11 j
j we discussed relative risks, operation at 5 percent a couple 12 weeks ago, there was some calculation of how long it take the 13 core to heat up.and it takes ten or tuelve hours and if you 14 have no emergency core cooling system.
It would be very If i
l difficult to get hydrogen, especially in quantities that 14 I
l would take to produce a combustible mixture.
17 l
The regional design basis was five times the 18 predicted metal water reaction from the IOCA analysis.
Five 19 times point three percent of these on and half percent.
Of I
20 l
course it would give a less in a corbustible mixture of 21 hydrogen, should that occur.
22 The Three Mile Island accidents esults would I
i j
certainly give a combustible mixture in the ice condenser
~
24 containment and our slide:shows about 12 percent.
If this i
i w
l i
was of a result of a LOCA that produced steam, and the steam j
[
m% var Re ompe. s c.
. ~.
i ancz sc.
l l-1 tend to suppress the hydrogen burning.
2 l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let us see, that becomes an explosive mixture, doesn't it?
4 MR. ROSS:
You would have to look at the chart of l
air, steam, and hydrogen to get the technical mixtures, is e
i that on the Commission paper?
6 7
l MR. DENISE:
Yes.
I l
MR. ROSS:
There is a triangular chart and they g
should, if it is complete, we will look and have it in a 9
l minute.
10 l
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I am thinking of the high 11 l
j pressure case; I am sure the numbers are the same here.
Why 12 i
do not you go on.
13 MR. DENTON:
Okay.
With the best of my memo 14 on hydrogen, was to recommend that we do inert the small GE 13 l
type containment that are not inerting.
That we establish 14 t
l rulemaking for consideration of remedial measures of ice 17 condensers and large containments and maybe other types 18 that fell into that intermediate category.
Certainly for 19 I
low power operation, there is little potential for fuel l
20 heat out and even less for hydrogen generaton.
But this is 4
21 an issue I expect to have to--that we will resolve going
~,
above a 5 percent power operation.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You said burning hydrogen i
f from 25 percent cladding reaction would not fail containment.
I#
I w
Does that mean it would not exceed the rating of the I
i icon.4% voiur me.ampia. i c.
il
- - m ar.
... = i.
~
c 39 escz sc l
t 1
l containment?
2 MR. DENTON:
I believe that that is up to three times 2
the design pressure.
Let me ask Dick Denise; is that the 4
I number?
MR. DENISE:
Yes.
Commissioner, the 25 percent e
I metal reaction would take the pressure up to about 36 pounds 6
per square inch guage and that would be three times the 7
f design.
Our assessment shows that it would not fail at that g
/
point but it would exceed the design.
It would take 15 per-9 I
j cent metal reaction to bring it up to the designed pressure 10 i
i of 12 PSI.
11 l
f COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And what is the relationship 12 beteen design and three times design?
How firmly established 13 is that?
I mean your conclusion is that it does not fail--
14 i
MR. DENTON:
That is a number for our engineering 1.5 l
branches who look at that as an ultimate, strength and I I
16 think that that is a disadvantage--
17
)
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Their estimate, is that 18 a generally accepted estimate?
19 i
i MR. DENTON:
Well, let me ask Jim Knight to l
20 l
answer it.
I 21 l
COMMISSIONER GILINSFN:
At what point would it fail?
l
~
I 23 l
MR. CENTON:
This was looked at in several of the safety studies and it has been a number that has been i
,e l
commonly accepted for this type of containment would be threej l
inrum.a m vunnarim h i c.
[
40 l
C l
==cz sc.
times the design.
Does anyone want to address the origin 2
l of that factor?
i MR. KNIGHT:
If I may.
We recently have also done g
j some very specific analysis of license type ice containment.
l And we find that the factor like three tc, is a quite conser-l
~
i vative number from Shellets, the standpoint of Shellet's shock 6
will even go higher than that.
If at that point where you 7
i could get to concern yourself, places around the shellet 8
l that ridgidize (?) by penetration of this type or thing.
9 i
So we feel that is a very good number, it is not a judgment 10 l
l number because--
11 i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the rating of the 12 containment ?
f 13 l
MR. DENISE:
14 i
MR. DENTON:
Now, to keep it in conttxt, there are 13 l
two operating boilers that are not inerting yet, inerted as 14 I
a result of fuel boilers to date.
There is one ice condensed i
17 operating that is not inerted.
Four ice condensers, there 18 are several remedial measures that we have under consideration.
I9 ONe would be to inert that would have c erational disadvantages.
y I
20 j
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are there inert ice 21 condensers?
I2 l
MR. DENTON:
No, there is only one ice condenser i
23 now, and it is not inerted.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
McQuire is not?
I
}
I 25 MR. DENTON:
They are not operating.
I i
l imm vansm= mix =rees. Im h
I 41
,1 a
l ncz sc.
\\
1 So another would be the addition of some sort of flammability 2
suppressant and perhaps that would have to be combined with t
l some sort of containment vending, also to keep the pressure i
4 I
under control.
But, I would anticipate we would obtain the advice from the ACRS fcr this class of plants and for the y
1 l
large dry condensers in the cottrse of a rulemaking proceeding 6
i I
or some other process that we recommend.
But I do not see 7
it as being a significant issue for 5 percent Sequoyah.
MR. DENTON:
Let us go the next slide.
To focus our attention on the license conditions, we have done a stage 4
l review and it is the issue that we began with is what should 11 this vehicle be?
We are prepared today to authorize todsy 12 fuel loading and zero power testing.
We think we could 13 interpret in the license the four conditions that must be 14 l
met before we go to 5 percent power testing and therefore 13 could issue an authorization that would include the 5 percent.
i 16 We are not prepared today to go beyond the 5 percent until j
17 i
i we get the advice from the ACRS on power operation until we 18 complete some other items such as the hydrogen and the control 19 issue.
But, the Commisssion discussed this the last time 20 l
and did reach a conclusion as to your preference-in this 21 matter.
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I thought we were leading I
23 pretty well toward a single instrument that would carry us 24 through the low power phase and be appropriately conditioned I
25 so that your approval was required to come off at a zero l
ines. arum vo=ar= mummm w.
42 l
0 l
escz sc l
power level and go on up to 5 percent or whatever would be 1
i 2
l appropriate maximum authorization in the instrument.
And I l
l presume that you could let us know when that occurred and l
4 I
if that we were interested in hearing how things were going l
we could your briefing.
That seemed to me--it does seem to 3
I me to be a more useful step to take than to issue only 6
l 7
an authorization for fuel loading and zero power testing and then we will have to come back and repeat the whole formal process in order to allow five--operations up to 5 percent or I
what is it a 170 megowatts you determine would be an appropriate 10 f
j l
level for the natural circulation tests that we want to
?1 I
e include in this phase.
12 MR. DENTON:
The four issues thac. need to be com-13 l
pleted before we are prepared to go from the zero power test 14 i
l to a 5 percent, were supplied to the Commission but let me I3 l
l t
rename them.
They were developing the procedures for the 16 I
l UHI system and the second one was completion review of 17 j
vender review of the low power test procedures.
OUr own I8 l
1 review of the test program and looking at the one question 19 about what bought some monitoring instrumentation was on.
I
'O l
So these we would be the four conditions that would have to 21 be added to the package for zero power, they would specify, 22 they would have to be met before we be prepared to go above 22 the zero power.
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
I wonder if I could, I gather l
24 I
13 we are now shifting into that type of discussion.
I would i
i e
l INTUIstAT10 peak VOLG4?His $w. n,,.
- lMC, I
1 m.ar.....= =
43 i
=
m x we.
I I
Ssk ACRS to have a representative here and Dave Okrent is here.
2 I would like it, at.least, since I was not at the previous t
2 meetings to ask Dave just to refresh us on what the ACRS 4
l position was with respect to Sequoyah at the present time.
I e
Dave?
I MR. OKRENT:
Well, December 11, 1979 there was a 6
j 7
letter sent to Commissioner Ahearne signed by the then i
Chairman Max Carbine, related to intro-low power operations g
in Sequoyah Unit 1 and the Committee excluded that thero was 9
I j
reasonable assurance that the sequoyah could be operated on 10 I
I entrance basis up to power levels, about 5 parcent of fuel 11 power, without under the health and safety of the public.
And there were certain petitions mainly that the Staff was 1
13 only to review the experimental program and insure itself 14 that well safety related aspects were being dealt with 13 l
l appropriately.
I am not aware of any reason that the 16 i
l Committee would have different view than it expressed in its 17 j
letter of December 11.
i 18 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
So as far as you can tell it 19 I
l uculd be fair to say given what Harold as proposed today, j
20 i
l that is consistent with what you recommended?
l 21 MR. OKRENT:
Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Thank you.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thought we had pretty 24 well agreed to the proposition that Bill had layed out here w
that we would go with one instrument part of avoid and j
i l
i i,,r
% v ri-=====. =
li me ocurts c.aama, rmer? s. e, surft ist
C 44 l
M ACK N o.
l 1
pilaphration (?) and authorizations, but that Harold would l
l 2
come and give us reasonable warning to what it is that he 2
l proposed to do.
As far as moving into the low power test i
4 i
phase from the zero power test phase.
It seems to be a l
3 l
reasonable approach to me.
I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I agree.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would like to check 7
l off of some sort at the--between the low power and the zero 3
power and the 5 percent limit.
It simply has to do with 9
my efforts to sift through the NTOL conditions, the SCR and I
the license itself, and get clear in my own mind just where i
i the differences are and what the Staff's basis is.
There 12 l
has been some sort of a bli :ard on this in the paper in 13 the last week or so and I can raise examples of the kinds of 14 concerns that I have.
None of them would stand in the way 13 l
of fuel loading and zero power testing, and maybe none of 16 l
them stands in the way of 5 percent either, but I would like 17 to have a check off list done.
18 MR. DENTON:
I would propose the 5 percent vechile 19 and let me come back and brief you when we are getting neAC l
- o the decision on the change and.I also plan to brief the ACRS 21 on our review of the test program, for example, m
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Well, that is part of what l
3 they requested.
Peter, would that--
I#
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
Let me give you an i
n example of the kind of question that I had in mind.
I gather i 1
inreen4 % vensafi Reno mnsic_
I se scat?te C.aw?ci. STutsr?. t v. surft tef
O l
- *cr s c.
45 l
1 you do not plan to go right down this slide, let me just jump I
l 2
l to the third--Denny, can you explain in general terms in I
some cases of the license you actually reference the SCR 4
l and in other cases, take for example your condition H, this y
is on shift release turnover procedures.
You have quite a 1
l detailed type of check list in the SCR, but quite general 6
i language in the license itself and what I would like to do 7
is get some f s,i for why in some of the conditions you would reference the SCR, specifically, and as to others I
you would have a fairly specific section in the SCR but a very general section in the licensing.
i 11 MR. ROSS:
Let met get Dominic Vassello to get 12 a little supplement information.
13 MR. VASSELLO:
This was H?
14 l
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
H, yes.
H is an easy one.
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Please use the microphone.
16 l
MR. ROSS:
I believe the one point that we ought 17 to start with is putting this type of license condition in 18 is somewhat of a learnir: period for us also.
We intended 19 to try to summarize th urasology of the Action Plan.
It I
O l
maybe that in each case we mark consistently with respect
- 1 l
to depth in material.
In any case, the depth of the material is deeper here than it has been in other places.
23 MR. VASSELLO:
Right.
Wrat was intended was in the 2d very beginning of that part 4 we tried to make clear that U
l each one of those items does refer to the SCR, even if it is Istreemanoseas. Veamanes MuPorreus, bec.
I se amine caerten, stancer, s. w. surft ter
f
. mx sc.
y l
l 1
not specifically called out.
And so on H we meant to imply 2
there that you go to IC.2.
MR. ROSS:
I turns out that I, roman numberial IC.2 4
l is an SCR part and it is a near-term OL thing and that have y
the same designation.
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Okay.
So what you are l
telling me is that the inspector as he looks through to see 7
l what has been done will be inspecting against the SCR--
8 MR. VASSELLO:
Yes, because it was difficult unless 9
l I
you wanted to reproduce enerything in the SCR.
And so we tried to devise some scheme for tying each of the near-term i
11 l
operating license items to something that an inspector could 12 go to.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And now let me ask the 14 i
l question.
Supposing that the licensee wants to change the 13 l
check list that is referenced here, does he now have to go 16 l
through the process of in effect, amending the license?
17 MR. VASSELLO:
Yes.
He cannot change that without 18 requesting that from NRC--
19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Is the check list in the 20 l
SCR?
MR. VASSELLO:
I would have to check.
i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
If it is not, then presumably:
U you would not, you are simply required to have one.
But if 24 it was, then you would be stuck.
U COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But, there is more detail in i
mm vo-Tim h 6 r.
I]
m sca,7w curfta, sTutztT, t w. su,ft tw
__7 nsaz Nc.
1 the SCR by quite a lot than there is--
2 MR. ROSS:
If the SCR is not going to reproduce the 2
check list, then I think within reasonable grounds the 4
1 licensee could make a change, the resident would be informed.
I But I do not think a reasonable change would need a license e
6 amendment.
If he dropped the practice altogether then, yes, 1
that would be a violation.
7 l
l l
MR. DENTON:
I would see if he could change the 3
check list provided the intent and the SCR description was 9
met for the inspector's satisfaction.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Provided that we provide 11 l
it was consistent with the langnage within the SCR?
12 l
l MR. SHAPAR:
I guess the only tie in for the 13 e
provision in the SCR is the reference IC2; is not that right?
14 If you wanted to tie it further, I do not think that that is 1.5 j
j a good enough--if you really want to tie them down, that is 16 I
l good enough to do it at least without some ambiguity.
- Look, 17 i
i if I understand yn"r peint, the way to do it would be to say 18 somewhere in the body of it in accordance with the provision 19 of IC2, if that is what you want.
I 20 MR. BICKWIT:
That is what you have done in some 21 cases and not in others.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That it says at the beginning
=S l
each of the following conditions references the appropriate
~
l section of part 2 of the supplement to No. 1 of the safety l
I i
w
~~
evaluation report.
I
-pi 4% viman Rem ma 9.c
C 48 l
6 masz sc.
1 MR. BICKWIT:
I would not read that as saying I
i 2_
l incorporates all the terms of the SCR 'y reference.
r 2
l MR. SHAPAR:
I would not either.
I 4
l MR. VASSELLO:
Well, it can be done but that was the e
intent.
l
~
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Has ELD been involved in--
6 l
i MR. ROSS:
The strucure of these licensed conditions 7
I is a participatory effort between Mr. Vassello and ELD g
representative and the worked a couple of weeks very hard to get up the nerve to mention the enforceability job of the f
inspector easier.
11 l
MR. DENTON:
If you would like, we can have Howard 12 give us clarifying language for that and--
l 13 l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Before we do that, now what 14 is the effect of doing that?
15 l
l CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
According to Don that is what 14 l
is making it consistent with they intended.
17 j
MR. VASSELLO:
I believe that was--the intent was 18 j
to have each one of these conditions refer back to--
19 l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Refer back, I know it does.
I 20 j
But, was it intended then by reference to incorporate all 21 of the text of the SCR?
m i
l MR. VASSELLO:
Yes.
It is my understanding--
1 I
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Of the sections of the SCR.
i I#
l MR. SHAPAR:
The section that it refers to it.
j i
MR. VASSELLO:
The section that refers to it, yes.
l Y
I me a:n,rw c.Leca, rmsxT. t w. su,rt to
i nsaz sc.
Ao i
i l
I i
MR. DENTON:
We were certainly more careful in 2
l writing the technical specifications of the licensing condition 2
l than we--in terms of the legal import of them than we usually l
4 are in our descriptive material in the SCR.
And I think that l
you raised a good point.
The text of the SCR may not be e
6 in all cases as precise, at normal license conditions.
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Or it may be a trifle to detailed for a reasonable licensed conditions.
g COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It maybe so detailed that the 9
i licensee will not be able to make reasonable changes in his 10 l
operating procedures even without him getting a license 11 i
t' amendment.
And I do not think that that is what our intent 12 would be.
13 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Let me reiterate the answer I 14 got.
The question was was it the intent.
So my understanding 9 13 i
the answer was when that license was written and the SCR that 16 i
goes with it, it was really intended that that--
17 i
MR. DENTON:
Well, that is certainly true, but 18 l
let me finish the introduction.
The only point I was making 19 l
is that we have had discussions about how lengthy in detail 20 l
l the tecnhical specifications were becoming and the SCR is 21 another 100 feet of document or something.
That where this is 22 i
l I
we have carefully crafted the Text Specs to reflect the i
1 23 f
condition.
Now in the SCR we are going to reference another
'A 100 pages or something through this--let me clarify.
Certainly i
t
-s l
l I do not disagree at all with what our intest was it is just
=
1
- - % vois.n namem a sac.
me stXtne C MTO. ST9tEET. L w. suf7T :S7
50
-i nsaz nc.
l 1
l a question--
2 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Could I at least ask the author?I i
l MR. VASSELLO:
Well, part author, yes.
I 4
i This cover, part 2 of the SCR and for each one of
{
those near-term operating license requirements, there was 3
I a Position and in a number of cases there were clarification 6
l of that, of those positions which were sent out to all 7
l operating licensee and the near-term operating license I
I l
applicants.
Then there was a discussion as to how the Staff 9
i interpreted those and how we approved those.
And so the intent was to go to that place of where the Staff stated it 11 I
interpretation of resolution and have that implement that 12 i,
item.
j MR. ROSS:
Let me give you a good example--
14 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I suspect since a number of 13 l
these items are an ongoing developments in terms of the 16 Action Plan and the Staff interpretations and so on, that you i
17 i
do not mean to fix at this time permanently for Sequoyah la i
whatever the interpretation is at 3:40 p.m. on 28 February 19 I
on a given item.
But, rather if a given item develops as O
these things have a habit of doing, for their elaborations, i
.)
_al better ways to get the thing done and so on, you would s
m hope to have sequoyah do it the better.
It raises the
~
U l
question then as to how precisely do you want to incorporate i
the language of the--sepcific language to each of the present d
l U
SCR supplement I here as a licensed condition.
I would thinki i
f im, m voi am nayamm. n.c.
i pacz sc.
i I
1 on those matters which are pretty specific to the low power 2
l test phase and hence, have a rather limited life in terms of I
the license for the plant of a long term, that you could 4
I stand to suf fer some inconveniences., but I would think it would l
not be a good thing to build in a form that would have to c
I l
endure for many years in the license of this plant, material 6
which will get out of date rapidly and then have to altered 7
l by an amendment process which turns out to be cumbersome 3
1 i
i enough to give us some problems in processing and the 9
1, I
licensee some problems in reasonable flexibilities.
10 i
i So, there is a--you are working between two horns 11 l
j of a regulatory dilemna.
On the one hand you like good 12 1
specificities so that the inspectors have a fairly complete 13 and specific list of items to inspect against and force la against; on the other hand to the extent that you do that i
13 in great detail, you make the license a very inflexible 16 l
and incumbersome object to deal with considering the fact 17
[
that our only mechanism for changing it are also fairly i
18 cumbersome and in an administrative procedure sense.
19 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
All too, Joe, but we are only l
20 addressing a license up to 5 percent.
21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, I wonder how--whether 22 I just suggest to the Staff that there are items here which I2 will clearly carry on and apply for the longer term than they I#
I exercise a certain amount of caution and how much language I
in whole part from the SCR at the current, the SCR supplement--
1 i
Inremam venaan Rupewrea t c me SOL /rw M STRG?. t w. Surft te?
pacz sc.
i l
I I
I MR. DENTON:
To avoid the need for us to go back 2
l and rewrite the SCR I would propose that we make the Part 1 l
l binding here for the short term license I think would not be 2
l 4
i undue burden for the period of operation that we invision.
f We will have to take a more careful look at it the next time.
e COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
My concerns really relate 3
I i
to the full term, full power area and anything that carries 7
from this part into that.
g MR. VASSELLO:
It was intended that way for the time I
j being that we use that approach.
10 l
l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You are both right; that is, 11 l,
that this license for this period of time for this plant at the i
12 same time, the dilemna that is being discussed is for all 13 plants.
For their length of their life.
And my own sense 14 i
l of the balance between enforceable conditions and flexibility II i
i and commitments, the drift is it has been a little too 16 I
much on the unenforceable size in the past, so it is an 17 i
area that I do have a continuing interest to see tighten up.
18 I'
But for perposes of today's discussion, I think the point 19 that has been made this applies that is license for this time 20 is a perfectly good basis to go ahead.
21 MR. DENTON:
Could you perhaps ask what you see in an i
l OLD that would provide the text that would tighten it up--
COMMISSIONLR BRADFORD:
Let us see.
You may be I#
1 all right.
i MR. BICKWIT:
I would change the word reference to l
23 l
l i
t.,m 4% vm
- m. Roomm i c.
un. c -cm. er=rr. s... mm m i
p a c z s c.
to incorporate the terms of the SCR bylaws.
7 l
MR. SHAPAR:
Or just say--
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Yes, I think that should be 7
I j
dealt with within their capability.
l MR. BICKWIT:
With little struggle.
I
~
l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Certainly either one d
i l
individually.
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It may not be within their 3
i capabilities, it may not be within their joint capabilities.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let me ask, since we have 10 l
i' j
now--
11 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Why don't you speak up?
12 l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Since we have discussed two 13 separate licenses, that is this one for this period with a
14 presumably a second new one for anything beyond this point.
13 l
What is the administrative procedure associated with that?
h5 I
i MR. BICKWIT:
My view would be that we would not l'#
,f have a licensing action in the sense that it would to be 18 I
noticed depend opportunity for hearing would have to be I9 i
provided.
I i
.'O COMMISSIONER HENDRIE,:
It would not.
21 MR. BICKWIT:
I would not.
That has been done with 22 respect to full power operating license, a full power f
operating license state many years ago that will serve to I3 I
24 i
ride through the process.
i i
l 25 I
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Ed, did you have some issues l
twrtmam vamann Roomres le.e.
1
. -m.
i
macz sc.
I 1
i that you wish to raise?
2 MR. HANRAHAN:
Yes.
There were two issues that I i
j think that we should keep in consideration as we decide on i
4 l
this.
The operator training experience and emergency preparedness.
I think on the first, you should have a 3
i I
clear discussion on that, and I think a good deal of that 6
i 7
j arises from the lack of clarity of percision on our own part l
in the requirements that we were seeing.
The decisions were made last fall on a Staff Paper, the Action Plan is called t
j for improvements and operating training and qualifications 10 i
have tended to be footnoted and grandfathered in certain 11 i
j ways and we have taken a lot of credit.
12 i.
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
I have circulated a memo to the 13 l
Commissioners to see if I can kind of get an agreement on 14 l
l that to clarify that.
a MR. HANRAHAN:
On the other hand, TVA has fulfilled 16 j
the requirements that were placed at any one time, so they 17 i
certainly cannot be faulted for not doing the right thing.
18 l
On the other hand, one might be disappointed with TVA since l
19 they have operating nuclear means.
They did not choose i'
.40 to staff Sequoyah with the age-a-deric (?) own experience 21 personnel.
2 The only outstanding thing that they have m
scheduled is that we retest some of the operators to meet the
~
i i
2#
l latest criteria by April.
Another point there is whether we I
,e choose to wisr to make that commitment on their part or i
i i-% vo e i.c
)
me sca,m CAMMm. sfuterr. t w. marrt te
l pacz sc.
I I
requirement of the license be issued.
1 In emergency planning, I think we should specify 3
the power limit, if it is 5 percent or to whatever it is to 4
l which the present plant is adequate.
i e
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
On that earlier p; dt, l
~
i do you have any comment on the augmentation of the control 6
room staff to the addition of a number of experienced persons?
7 I
f MR. HANRAHAN:
Well, I think that should eleviate the lack of experience by having the experience people there.
The only problem that rises, is that they are of a mind of I
people, they are advisors, but that is in an operation mode 11 l
where that should be accurate.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you have any thought 13 l
about requirments to moving to full power should that staff 14 be augmented on a permanent basis through the addition of 13 l
operators with experience in other nuclear plants?
16 i
Or is it satisfactory that the operators gain the six-month 17 l
experience or whatever it will be.
!8 l
MR. HANRAHAN:
If you have that amount of experience--
l I
19 l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Because if we feel the l
20 first ought to happen we ought.be warned by TVA now.
That was your point earlier.
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Yes.
IU COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And it sounded like a good suggestion to me.
2#
i i
3 MR. DENTON:
Well, there are three ways to get I
i i
larfpneATM> nan. VDESAThe REPCstT1mE IfeC.
f I
se soWTW C.prTen, fruttr?. t w. suffT 187 I
c 56
,1 i
I pacz sc.
1 1
experienced operators.
You can hire them from another company, 2
or take them out of your own operation, you can recruit them i
from the Navy - which I would not recommend--
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would not even recommend 3
hiring them from other companies where you are putting requirements on them so that they are all import (?).
6 MR. DENTON:
Or you can have a bottom entry program 7
which is what TVA had which tends to grow their own so to speak.
This has been permitted in the past.
I think the historical record in the case, is that there are less I
turnover in the TWA type program when people are augmented i
from the bottom.
We will not face this issue--
12 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Really, I think Ed's point was, 13 at least as I understood was, that perhaps TVA might consider 14 l
l putting of their Browns Ferry people --
1.5 l
l MR. DENTON:
But they would have to go through--
16 I
l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think it would be a bad 17 idea.
I do not think that you want to pull people out of a 18 l'
boiling water reactor operating rescheme and try to cram them 19 I
over to this PWR on the basis of having one set of controls l
20 of a nuclear power plant, you are now ready to drive all 21 nuclear power plants; it just does not go.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, let us see.
If that m
is right, then there isn't nobody on that stuff with experience 24 in operating the kind of plant--
l 23 l
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Nobody has experience i
i-= v-ri e i c.
ase 3lm/Tse c. amter. STytGT. L w, SJrTT te
~
pacz sc.
l 1
in operating Sequoyah.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Wtil, nobody there has i
3 experience operating a PWR, at least that is what we have 4
l been told.
l f
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The augmented staff from nuclear services--
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Oh, right--
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
--Westinghouse have a lot of time on Westinghouse plants for loop plants in particular.
f COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Can we confirm that in fact, io I
I do not recall having been told that none of those qualified I
11 operators had ever operated on a PWR.
Now, that maybe true--
12 MR. ROSS:
That is what we told you, yes, sir.
13 We have two of the license people were Brown's Ferry people--
14 COMMISSIO!JR KENNEDY:
Okay.
I 13 l
MR. ROSS:
--and I think some of them had had some 16 I
old experience but nothing of a recent PWR--
I i
17 MR. DENTON:
And, of course, they have all at least 18 spent three months in training at operating PWRs.
19 I
MR. ROSS:
But the so-called obversation training--
I 8
.'O l
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE-My impression is that this
- 1 Sequoyah operating group had been in training so long that--
I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If they do not go to work 23 they are going to loose their skills.
l Id COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No.
I think to get back i
i 15 to your other point, I think that getting these extra j
larvenaance % Vuesanu 8ttm:suTtet lac me 3:IUTM CAMTcs. STitEET. L w. Sufft Itf
__58 i
pacz se, I
1 experienced individuals, was a very useful product of our 2
discussion.
i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think it is and I think A
l that it is the kind of support that each new station 3
needs as it come along.
But I really think the group that 6
has been trained by TVA for this plant, including Watts more i
7 l
simulated time, their own facility that has even been ruled I
1 l
in the past and some time half operaiing iWRs, of course, is l
l their training.
By the time they come through this four to six 9
1 10 I
months of low power work that additional advisors on hand, I
why I have confidence that they will be in good shape and I i
11 l
l do not think it would be helpful--the real comment I am 12 i
j making is that in view of that I think it would be unhelpful 13 I
l to the organization to impose further requirements for 14 deviated pullovers and boiler water people from Brown's Ferry i 13 l
just because they have benefit control of a live machine.
It 16 is substantially a different machine and they have to face 17 l
a years training before they become--
18 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Joe, do you feel similarly 19 that it would be unhelpful if they were to hire people with 20 PWR operating experience?
21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I expect any operation would
)
22 be glad to have additional people with good experience.
Most organizations are glad to get people with good experience.
~
I#
If you propose to cram those people in and push down in the j
l i
hierarchy, people who have been in training for Sequoyah i
im = vaum. ammois. %
[
amo e curfta. STutzt?, t w. sJrft it?
j
59
,i t.
- *cz N C.
~
i itself, for four or five years, I think that is apt to have 2
a very depressing effect on the operating staff around, be a l
negative for safety.
My impression is that they have a 4
l pretty good coew down there and in terms of effective I
management and leadership that human organizations do not e
i do violence to it.
It ain't broke.
Don' f ix it.
6 I
i CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
It has not started yet.
7 l
j MR. HANRAHAN:
I did not--I want to make clear.
l I was not suggesting that the Brown's Ferry people ougght I
j to be transferred over to Sequoyah, that was not the point.
10 The point is that, you know, some time in the past those 11 l
l things could have happened.
12 i,
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Well, I still think it would IL be useful for inspiration of how could they get some people 14 i
l with operating experience of PWRs?
15 MR. DENTON:
I think by the time that they complete 16 l
the low power testing program with national circulation and 17 loss of offsight power and eight other abnormal conditions, 18 they are going to be better trained for some of the aspects 19 I
that we are interested in than people who hav e sat at the 20 l
controls.
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Ed, you had one other.
i MR. HANRAHAN:
That was to specify how the limit
)i l
we believe that the emergency plan is adequate for and it is i
Id understood.
I i
i 23 l
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
I think that is specified in the; t e m vomane R m prrem lac l
1 soun. careca. sme. t w. surrt ter I
60 o
pact sc.
1 txcrange of letters; isn't it?
2 MR. HANRAHAN:
No, I do not think it is.
3 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
You mean the percentage.
It 4
was--
4 3
MR. DENTON:
Well, I think it has been implicit by 6
5 percent all the time that is what all the discussion 7
has been about.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You passed over a g
recommendation earlier with regard to the retest program, 9
that that should be --the commitment already exists, but 10 that it should be in the license--
);
MR. HANRAHAN:
We have considered doing this, yes.
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Any reason that we ought to do that?
MR. DENTON:
Well, the recall program is necessary through some other mechanism, automatic recall program, I l
think a year after you gotten your license--
MR. ROSS:
Well, we point out that the recall program that TVA is commited to it, it is on Page 132 and it 19 is coming out soon and we are going.to monitor the 20 examination and the new criter'ia is going to be used and this 21 is only about six weeks away.
22 MR. DENTON:
But the recall program is spelled 23 out in some Reg Guide or some other place.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Their commitment to it 23 I
levemam Vesaams 8ttponrom lac I
me s:mim c.aam:n. sTnszt. s. w. sures is,
I 61 1
pacz we.
t -
i I
I as a basis in present NRC regulations apart from the licensee.
f MR. DENTON.
Let me ask Don Skovholt for what were 2
1 some of the basis of the recall program is?
4 i
Don?
l MR. SKOVHOLT:
The requirement to have a recall e
I l
qualification program in inherrent, as far as giving you 6
l our regulations and TVAS submitted a document describing the 7
program which is run satisfactory.
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Any other questions?
MR. BICKWIT:
I have some small ones th'at I think 10 I
could be dealt outside this room.
They are small technical 11 1
questions involving the wording of the license.
12
.I CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Okay.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Were you going to take up la i
I the policy statement as well?
15 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Well, I was actually--my list Id t
of people, I had ACRS, OPE and then OGC.
I was going to 17 j
j turn and ask that question but Peter if you--
18 l
l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
I just wanted to know l
19 l'
if you were going to take it up before, after, or not at all.
20 If your way of picking it up is to turn to Len, I will just
'l keep rigrt on rotating.
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Len, you had been working on l
a policy statement in the event that we did take action, 2
i 9*4 i
i where do you stand on that?
,e Wehavethreeconcurrenceswithrespeck MR. BICKWIT:
l I
inwn.a m vmamos b.
lac j
O P AGE No.
l l
1 to language which is very similar.
I do not know where the l
other two offices stand.
CHAIRMAP ADHEARNE:
I see.
4 i
I think the issue before us is then to address i
j the authorization to go to the rescheme of the zero power e
t i
test and low power up to 5 percent.
The information that 6
i I have read, heard, I read the transcripts of the previous 7
I meetings leads me to believe that I would go for the authorization.
9 Vic?
g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would approve.
11 l
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Dick?
12 COMMISSIONER KENNED'l:
I would approve.
13 I
l CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Joe?
14 l
l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Very much so.
IS l
CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Peter?
I 14 2
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I would approve with 17 the understanding that Harold will be back--
18 CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Will be back, yes.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Also with the point that is l'
20 I
certainly made in the policy statement but I would not want i
.)
to loose it here either that as far as I am concerned at least I
22 this autrorization ia not, and while I cannot help what the i
I otuside world makes of it, the Staff and the licensee should 24 not interpret it as being the end in the holt in licensing.
To me that is conditioned on the Commission's business, sortinh U
,_ v-,
r_ im
4 I
63 l
i pacz Nc.
i 1
its way through a host of other actions including further 2
I ACRS review, including the action of other areas and I 1
certainly would not want this very limited approval that i
4 i
has been taken--that the Staff, anyway as an indication that the licensing holt was over.
e l
f CHAIRMAN ADHEARNE:
Well, I think it is very clear 6
1 i
i We have been very explicit, I believe, on what we have 7
approved.
The ACRS and their recommendation was very explicit 5
and they have not yet come back to us with that additional i
kinds of statements.
10 All right.
Thank you.
11 l
(Whereupon, the meeting was 12 l
adjourned at 3:40 p.m.)
13 14 j
1s i
16 I7
[
18 l
l l
19 20 I
21 t
22 l
i 22 24 i
b I
se i
twrneum Youunu h u.c.