ML19296C737

Transcript of Commission 800215 Hearing in Washington,Dc to Continue Briefing on Facility.Viewgraph of Control Room Design Review & Diagram of Control Panel Encl

ML19296C737
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	02/15/1980
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8002280077
Download: ML19296C737 (78)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:l l pm u < xs 0 U NIT E D STATES NUCLEAR R EG UL ATO RY COMMISSION in the m atte r of: C271'INL% TION CF BhLC CN SICUOYAH ( PIaee: Washington, D.C. Date: February 15, 1980 page3; 1 - 75 8002 280077 INTERNAT1CNAL VERBAT1M R.mnTms.INC. 499 SCUTH CAPITCL STREET, S. W. SUITE 107 WASHINGTCN, D. C. 20002 202 484-35!0

.a i I O ' " PACE No. I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x j In the Matter of: 4 j I i CONTINUATION OF BRIEFING I i + ON SEQUOYAH I 6 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _h j d 3 .i 4 ? 1 I i 10 Room 1130, Eleventh Floor 1717 H Street, N.W. ( 11 Washington, D.C. t-l Friday, February 15, 1980 l i i 13 l 14 The Commiss2on met, pursuant to notice, for i 15 presentation of the a' cove-entitled matter, at 10:10 a.m., l 16 BEFORP-i 17 VICTOR GILINSKY, COMMISSIONER l l i tg JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, COMMISSIONER l - j gy-frv' y' .22.swu 'newe%v:LWT,p. dic// RED 7 CE4/dED, %vm/M w I PETER A. BRADFORD, COMICS IONER 0 .) LEONARD BICK IT, GENERAL COUNSEL l 4. h j i M.. b ^3 l

.a l UDD 031V s aCZ NC. t i I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would like to announce i that at the end of this meeting, approximately 11:30, we will hear from Mr. Stello, Director of Inspection Enforcement, who j i 1 went up to Three Mile Island to look at the situation there i i e l and he will report on what he found to the Commission, j t 6 We're here to continue the Commission's review of 7 the sequoyah application. I think the other Commissioners { will be along shortly. In any case I suggest we go ahead t I without them. i 7 I don't expect a decision on this matter here today. Although I understand that the staff regards most of the issues as finally resolved, there's still some time required l t,a to review submissions and prcpare documents. We have tenta-1: I tively scheduled another meeting for late next week. I What we're considering here is an authorization i for a low power testing. In fact, as I understand it, at { l 16 I t this moment for zero power testing in that you would not ~ T immediately recommend authorization of the low power test 18 phase which might.go up to say 5 percent until certain 19 further questions are resolved. 20 l MR. DENTON: That's correct. 21 f COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Of course, full power 1 commercial operation would await resolution of other out- \\ ~~ standing safety questions. Since the rationt.le for proceeding l 4 l as we are, rests precty heaviliy on the notion that the i i risks in low power et ration are cons'd - 1 e

NDP c alv 3 i ,,,g y e, I i connected with full power operation. I I've asked that the Commission receive a briefing t i later today. It's scheduled for 2:30, which would go intc 4 great detail into that question. I think that would be f i l I very helpful. At least I would find it very helpful. l i I 3 Assuming that the issues are all considered to be f 7 l resolved for the purposes of low power operation, it seems to j me there are three questions open to the Commission. It i I could grant an operating license with a condition tying i .y operation or low power, in fact, zero power for the initial l stage. That condition to be relieved by the Director of 11 I Nuclear Reactor Regulation. It could also issue something 12 i that one might call a low power test authorization, something l 13 i that analogous to an LWA for the operating stage, which Id I would initially be limited to zero operation but with that 15 i j condition to be relieved by the director when he felt that I i 16 i a t could be done. Or, we could cut it even finer and have two !7 authorizations for the low power stage. First, a zero power 18 authorization and.then a low power authorization. I i 19 I think there is some sentiment on the Commission,

o l

i at least for the latter of these two courses and perhaps for l

1 l

the first of the, too. I want to be sure that when we are i ~ ready we have all the proper legal documents in place. I l think the Commission is going to have to decide which of } i ~ these persons to adopt. If I've left out any options, I hope i 4 * + I

NDD a lY-I O 4 i P AGZ NC i I I will ask for recommendations from the staff on which course they think -- l (Whereupon Commissioner Bradford arrived at the t i 4 i meeting at 10:14 a.m.) i I I j (Whereupon Commissioner Kennedy arrived at the e i m eting at 10:15 a.m.) 6 i c MR. SHAPAR: There is another option that you have l not mentioned. This was your point and that is that it's 1 l really called the initial document and subsequent ones would ,v f j be called amendments, which is generally the way we've 10 l 1 handled this sort of thing before. So with that limited I 11 l l schedule that's one option. 12 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Okay. In a way, yes that's 10 i right. That really is a separation option, right.

• 4 l

l l I think the Commission is going to have to decide l U r this and the General Counsel and the Executive Legal Director I6 will have to make sure that we're so legally fit to go I*,* .i forward. 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: If that's the case, we 19 better choose any road that leads to amendments. 20 I MR. SHAPAR: That is only a problem with orders l il t I think. I i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, turning to the i ~ continuation of the review, we were going to hear from the I i i resident inspector and to continue marching through the l document. Bef r wa ' 'b 4+ 1

NDP -alv ~ - 5 I naz na j l I could bring us up-to-date on the situation on emergency l planning. We've not seen some letters with FEMA which seem i 1 to go inth direction of resolving those questions. I would A be helpful if you could return to the NTOL list and at least i I consider a review for me the status of the operating training e l question and the extent to which those NTOL requirements 3 7 all are not met. If they're not met why it's satisfactory l 3 l t g home without them being met. t l 9 I'd like you to mention the exemptions that are required for this authorization to be granted. Why they're g l need and are we in fact changing those regulations for all ,t i reactors? If you could also mention questions connected with u i the containment, which I gather would have to be resolved ,,w before full power operation is commenced which you won't U l regard as necessary at this point. l II l l With that, please take it from there. 14 MR. DENTON: All right. We have made considerable 17 progress since the last meeting. There were two types of 18 issues outstanding last Tuesday. One was with regard to the 19 i i near-term operating license lists. There were a number of { 20 I differences of opinion between we and TVA. I think we 21 l resolved the last difference of opinion just this morning. C TVA has submitted a number of commitments and changes. We needt ~ to review these, to be sure that the commitments do represent I

• A

~ what we think they represent. But, we have agreed on a j ~ course of resolu '

• -a

1. + a

• *andi

NDo al" c nacz sc. i I i operating license issues. I The other issue that was outstanding last Tuesday l was emergency planning. I did change letters with Mr. } 4 i McConnell in FEMA. My reading of this letter to us is that t he considers the present state of emergency planning in NRC i both at the state and local level adequate for the type of 6 low power operation we prepare to authorize. I've provided I you with copies of these letters and they're available in the t back of the room also. t' These letters point out the reduced risk of operation l at 5 percent, a lack of inventory, increased margins, and 11 the state of readiness that actually exists in the state I2 ,i today. l 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I wonder if the Executive la l Director has any views on this letter? MR. DIRCKS: Well, actually we helped prepare this 14 letter, in which FEMn 17 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I should have knrwn, i 18 i MR. DIRCKS: -- and the reply from FEMA 19 e, i MR. DENTON: I read the last paragraph on the first

• C pasge of this letter.

It says based upon your statement of ~1 potential foreign consequences of accidents during low l l ~~ n ~ power testing and our knowledge of the present condition of I, ~ Tennessee's state and local emergency plans, your staff's j i recommendations for licensing to permit low power testing { appears to be reasonable. i

i I NDP alv 7 i c nacz sc. i en i I So, I agree that they're satisfied with the status l. 2 ~ emergency planning for the operation MR. BICKWIT: I take it that you independently are \\ 4 i satisfied? I \\ e MR. DENTON: Yr. r, we are. i I / i 6 l MR. BICKWIT: That's the legally relevant determina- ! t i i 7 l tion? g j MR. DENTON: Yes, we are. In fact, we've looked at the deficiencies in the plan from full power and have 9 considered whether or not the'v would affect our perception of 10 } } low power and they ao not. I 11 1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What kind of deficiencies I2 are you talking about? I MR. DENTON: Let me ask Mr. Martin, who I think I4 i t may be in the room. If I i Mr. Martin? Well, I have another list here with { id i me. But, there -- excuse my delay in finding Mr. Martin's 17 l write-up. But, I have located the list of the deficiencies. l 18 l i They are demonstration of preparedness that come j 19 I from the full spectrum of accidents as outlined in NUREG 396: 20 I provisions and means to notify the public within ten miles of 21 an expeditious fashion, establishment of a near-site emergency Jr 8 operation center including all appointments to that center, ^~ adoption of predetermined classification list, demonstration .i ~ of co.umunications among all principle parties, public informa- ! 9. l ~ tion program establishment, anal sis of times for o

l nne :.m 8 ncz sc. i e I evacuation, separate the plans and the implementing procedures,, f i and they discuss within the concept of operations between 3 l TVA's, the Sequoyah station, local, state, and Federal agencies., t 4 We have identified the deficiencies and they have I been reviewed by my staff and they're not considered various i 6 to the 5 percent licensing. t 7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But, presuming we'd have to 3 l come to grips with them -- l i MR. DENTON: Before a full power license would issue. 9 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: At least some of them 10 l l h sound pretty fundamental. It sounds really as though what 11 his letter must be saying is that rather than start consequence ) associated with anything going wrong at 5 percent or what'd I l,a i I get you by, the inability to notify people within ten miles la i it seems to be something one would want remedied. II I MR. DENTON: I think -- 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: If you really thought anyone 17 was coinc to have to move. IS i MR. DENTON: I think most of these deficiencies are 19 l between the previous three mile planning zone and ten mi). 20 planning zone. Whereas they had a reasonable set of planning

1 l

l for :he previous requirement COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: For the three mile zone. = i MR. DENTON: and so with us being extended out l i 4 to ten, they've not completed their planning between the three ! l e

I NDP aly j 9 c pacz.9c. i x i t I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Have you had a chance to 2 I look at this, Ed? i i 2 MR. HANRAHAN: No, I have not. I i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: I understand that even in A i l J states where there is a concurred in-state plan that FEMA's 6 attitude with regard to new plants coming up is going to be that it's a new ball game. Was there any further discussion 7 i 3 of that problem in the meetings with FEMA? That is we've all recognized for a long time that j where there are concurred in-state plans that are based on g the previous criteria and we have now or are now in the process of changing the criteria, everybody recognizes those ,,u previously concurred in-state plans ill have to be upgraded. We have been planning for sometime to accomplish that in a it i l i reaeonably time fashion. My understanding is FEMA now proposes to attempt to do that essentially instantaneously l '0 h and it will have not quite but about double the number of i f 17 { state plans to the new criteria that have to be established, 18 l digested and approved. So, it seems to me that my good 19 friends at FEMA are running in directions which I did not i

o I

understand. I was shaking hands on with John Macy back when 21 l we started down the road toward this memorandum of understanding and I wonder if there's been any indication from FEMA staff { l that they have an appreciation of quite what they've embarked 24 on. I ac ~~ I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Tha' do a**= 'n

NDP aly i g pacz Nc. '^ 1 1 I i i 4 specifically in this -- j l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: No, it doesn't because this is a case that { COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: -- issue right before us 4 i e that it's an important question. I 3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: This is a case in which the i i 7 3 Tennessee plant is being put in place. But, we're going to l d i I l run up against this problem of unconcurring in concurred 9 in-state plans as we come to Virginia and New Jersey with I the next plants that are likely to come, California when that i l one clears the adjudicato*y boards. ,l i MR. DIRCKS: I think so. Let me follow up on that. l !2 i i I'll get those back to you, i 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's do that. 14 i i Harold? ^ l 13 MR. DENTON: I think what I'd like to return to I6 the near-term operating license issue.efore we turn to the status of a plant that the resident inspector was going to describe is one issuc that we didn't cover last time was 19 our review of. control room. I think I'd like to pick up 20 there as being a near-term operating and give you brief 21 i description. 6 i A lot of review of control room things we think i need to be directed in the near future in this area and then l 4 i we'll down the list of the items tha t we've already described i A 6 y

i r NDP calv 11 l

• • CZ NC t'

l 1 I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Fine. l 1 MR. DENTON: So, if we could have Rod Satterfield 1 l come up and describe the status of that review. j ? f l MR. SATTERFIELD: Let's see, I have some slides 4 i you'll fine useful. j 3 I 3 lI We took a group of people from our staff numbering i i 7 about four people with different capabilities. We also made i i i i use of our contractors, the Essex Corporation. This is the r l same group that assisted the Rogovin special inquiring group 1 I i { in reviewinc the Three Mile Island control room. We're make i 10 i use of essentially the same people to help us in doing the control room review, design reviews that we have planned. I l,a I 13 Of course the Sequoyah review is the first one we did. l i i We had four people from Essex and we had four people 14 ( l i from our staff. What I want to do was just very briefly run IS I i down the common things that we found there and give you some 16 idea as to when we think they'll be corrected. 17 The first eight or nine items there are all items I 18 r that can be corrected fairly essentially. They're items 19 l that we think can be corrected without a lot of negative l

a impact on the opera + r and that was something we gave a j

21 i great deal of consideration to. l ~ The first item has to do with inadequate control l l ~~ room communications. I have another slide. Dave if you t could put that one up. It doesn't lay a very peor one, but i 9C i 'y f nm 4 m m; 6 6 C ~ C

l i NDP =alv I pacz Nc. 17 I Secuoyah control room. The distance from the horseshoe there 2 l in the left-hand side of the slide is about eicht l i I f 2 You'll notice the panels there running along the i 4 length of the control room. The operator has to have access i t j to those panels. During normal operation that can be l l i 6 difficult because there's a fair amount of noise in the I l ,i 7 control room. i l 1 l We are particularly concerned about the possibility 9 of the need for communication during the time the operators i 10 may have to wear protective clothing. What we have asked l TVA to do is to install telephones at various points in that You'll note also back behind the horseshoe there, there area. 1,4 l are a number of panels and the operator has to have access i I to those areas too. 14 i l l So, as a short-term fix, we've asked that TVA 15 I install telephones and they're going to do that. l 16 l I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me understand, when 17 i you deficiencies to be corrected prior to criticality, when 18 1 do you see this happening. Is this something that's going l 19 to get done in a week or is this -- 20 MR. SATTERFIELD: Most of it is being done now. 21 i We talked yesterday with TVA about gc "ing it done over the f 'T i next two weeks and almost everyone of these items can indeed 22 I be done. I indicated that these items will be corrected ~ 24 i pr..or to criticality. They indicated to me that in a letter

• C l

1

NDP =alv l 13 ,,gg y e, l I to three weeks. So, that'll give them a fair amount of i I time between the time their deficiencies sre corrected and l t l the time they begin to have to build fuel. 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY. Would you recommend issuing l 4 i l 3 i an authorization to proceed prior to these items having been 6 completed on the basis of the commitment? 3 i 7 MR. DENTON: Yes, I would, because of the type of l j issues that they are. I don't think they'd interfere with 1 i fuel loading with their erecting -- 9 I j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Oh, I see. They can proceed I with fuel loading but criticality would have to await -- i MR. DENTON: Yes. I MR, SATTERFIELD: Now, understand that most of I i I I these items will probably be corrected even before fuel la I loading. IS l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right. l t4 i MR. SATTERFIELD: Our only concern was that the 17 operator be given sufficient time to adjust to these i 18 corrections. I think most of them are of the type that I 19 i i presents very little difficulty. j 20 l l I MR. DENTON: I think you ought to say a few words 21 about each one of these so you can get a feel for the type ~ of issues that 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me just ask you a little i .g question. How long does fuel loading take? I M

NDP; aly i'-- 14 ' AGZ NC. i i I l Just the fuel load itself a couple of weeks, right Bill? I i 1 i MR. COTTREL: What we do, we normally take about a l week for fuel loading and then about a week to replace a l l I reactor vessel head and remake dogular (?) electrical 4 i e connections. l 8. l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Okay. 3 I 7 MR. SATTERFIELD: But, I think you'll see here that 3 l most of these things are items that can be corrected very quickly. They're not the kind of thing that are going to 9 severely impact an operator. i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Rod, how does telephone 11 i equipment help you if you're wearing protective equipment? 1,. 1 MR. SATTERFIELD : The telechone 13 is useable under I I a situation like that. You can put the receiver up against 14 the side of the mask you're wearing. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The problem at TMI I 16 gather, was that people just couldn't ta]k to each other. 17 l MR. SATTERFTrTn: They had no devices like this. la I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: These are telephones that 19 each individual would be carrying? 20 MR. SATTERrIELD: Oh no, their telephones will be ~1 installed ar various strategic points along the panels. They'll i be wired in so they're always xvailable. That's a short-tern I i fix. We're going to have to ccme up with something -- or i i ~ really have to come up with something better in the long run. 1 /M 'O Q l li. 4 nk q s e v

i NDP aly 15 I g eacz sc. ~. f t i I enabling somebody at the head of the horseshoe to talk to i somebody 80 feet away -- l i f MR. SATI'WD: Back behi'd the panel or some distance l i A away. That's right. l We found that in some instances l e i l there was inadequate protection against invert switching in 4 t i 7 some of the panels there in the horseshoe. An operator i leaning over the panels could actuate some of the switches. I i In order to correct that, we've asked the licensee to install ? t I i a railing in that portion of the control room. l 10 i There are also some of these panels down away from I the horseshoe there are a large arrays of switches which if l I i somebody moving along by that area could conceivably actuate. i 13 I t MR. DENTON: I think that railing was first suggested 14 l I i by one of the NRC students. I.! l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Well, if it's made direct 16 diameter, a little human engineering there so you can turn 17 l around and lean on it, it'll be a great blessing and benefit I is to humanity. 19 !G. San M IELD: I think the idea is to install a railing 20 which will not support a person-

• 1 t

COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: A lot of good that'll do. MR. SAITMmn: The person sitting on the railing. There are these vertical panels back in this i 4 area of the control room t'.at I mentioned there are a lot j i .isnh k%ns 1A mk k A 6 I

NDP calv h t p a cz.Nc. 16 f -w i i 1 l that area. i i i e I What we done is instead of putting up railings i I c. which we thought would probably obscure the operators from I A i knowing the position of those switches, we've simply asked i i e 3 TVA to put in some hash marks that would from it to i 3 keep people away from that area. The concern in that area is ( 7 quite a bit less than and these are with it. 3 Dave, could I have the other slide back, please? i The third item deals with incomplete procedures, probably better defined as procedural inadequacies. We found that the i 10 t indexing for the procedures, these mercy procedures, was not 11 I as good as it could be. There was also in some cases l 12 1 reference to external procedures. That is, if one went. l through the emergency procedure you can find some references l 14 l t I to other materials, which in some case is not readily IS available. We were concerned about that and recognized that 16 I in some cases some of that referencing has to be done.

But, 17 we wanted to make sure that at least for immediate action 13 statements, those. statements would guide the operator making 19 the actions fairly promptly after an event, out to be an all 20 inclusive.

• 1 i

TVA's agreed to go back and make sure that isn't 2 i 1 indeed the case. They claim that's the case now. We found l some of the same inadequacies for the alarm system for I- ~1 I Sequoyah that have been discovered elsewhere and we expected I

• t i
• =

t,a e*

NDP c alv = +e--- l I pact sc. 17 t i I t There is not clear demarcation between the alarms l i \\ for those truly safety significant alarms versus others that ~ i had to do with other parts of the process which are not as i 4 i important. What we've asked them to do in the short-term I e is simply get some colored film and pace that film over the i t 8 6 lenses in front of the lights that are of sufficient importance. t 7 Again, they operate a little more help in determining which l of the alarms are important. A fairly simple thing that 3 i can be done very quickly. i 9 10 We found a lack of demarcation amongst the instru-t l mentation control equipment that's used for both units. is i l David, you can give me that slide again. 4 If you look on the panel in the back, back behind 13 i the horseshoe, you'll find control equipment that's used for !4 i t } both units. Likewise, on these panels on the side, we find i 15 the same situation. What we're concerned about is making 16 sure that that operator in time of crisis would have no diffi-17 culty in determining which of the equipment applies to which 18 I i unit. So, we've asked TVA to look into ways by which there 19 could be better demarcation in these control rooms. They've 1 20 come up with a way of doing that'just by a very simple color

1 i

l i coating we think that's acceptable. j t = l Go back to my original slide. Another item dealing 22 with the annunciator panels, we found in looking through and 24 going through the Sequoyah simulators that the annunciator

• E i

) _y av e r u

NDP alv l

• *CZ N C-

~s i f l 1 i with the panels seem to be different than that to found in the ! control room itself. That seems like a fairly easy thing i to fix. It'll make the job and the operating a little S easier and TVA's agreed to look into it. 4 There are limitations with the staff monitoring i l panel. This is an array of light bulbs that gives the 6 i i 1 operator an indication of the system readiness for certain i. / 3

o. the safety systems in the plant if you don't have an I

all nights lift and there's an indication that the safety 9 i systems not ready to go. The problem is the light burns out. i There's no procecure involved to insure that the light bulbs 11 t are tested frequently. Again, it's a fairly simple thing 1: to correct. 13 l Finally, we found that in one instance there was 14 as a result of some maintenance activity steam generator i 13 level recorders that got swaped so that you had a level 14 recorder that was indicated to be a recorder or one steam } 17 generator. Actually, it gave me the for another. 18 That was, of cours.e, corrected immediately. 19 I think it's clear that most of these items are 20 fairly simple. They are -- 21 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Rod, where is that status s! I ~ panel? You're not referring there to the bi-stable boards? { ~,

• ~

MR. COTTREL: No, sir. Those aren't the postage a4 stamp bi-stable lights. They're the monitoring panels on 1' 1 1.M.6 c 1 V ~

Nno e n n, f I i 19 macz sc. -~ l I l the safety injection given the status of the position of l valves and whether the pumps are running high by looking at l \\ the panel itself. 1 COMM2JSIONER HENDRIE: It doesn't seem to me we had I I that on the simulator some months ago. I \\ 6 MR. COTTREL: Yes, sir, they're there. 7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Was it there? 3 j MR. COTTREL: Yes, sir. If you recall the panel that 9 certain of the lights were blocked in with tails (?) g because those lights actually assume the different position during a safety injection. ~ COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Up on the annunciator banks? l MR. COTTREL: It's between -- it's below the it l annunciator bank, but, it's above the postage stamp bi-stable. l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Oh, okay. 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The last of those items 17 seems different in time from the other seven of them. That is, la the others if the. changes hadn't been require? I suppose they 19 would have gone along living with them. The last one, I 20 take that would have been discovered rather early in the -- 21 MR. SATTERFIELD: I think that's true. I don't + C know when the air was made. Ray Maris was one of the people C who went down. Ray, do you know when the air might have i i 24 occurred? How long that air existed prior to your -- t MR. MARIS: We asked them and hm I

NDP c al" 20 l ucg yg ^ ' l I 1 go back and look at those engineering changing work and we l never did get a date. But, we discovered the first day, we t I l were just observing the panels and looking at the switches f i 4 and the vital association and their labe3ing of f. i t l We just have to see. l = \\ I MR. SATTERFIELD: I think you're right. It's 6 i I a maintenance ,but a unifactory problem. / COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: How would that normally 3 have come to light? That is, as the plant started to come 9 ) up it would have been inevitable that someone would have 10 i I i been puzzled. 11 l l MR. SATTERFIELD: Well, I would expect that the i I2 l' control of the operators to discover that quite quickly. i 13 MR. COTTREL: I'd like to point out one thing on I4 l those recorders, Commissioner. With the plan and the status 13 l that it's in right now, we're not monitoring to be enumerating 16 levels. So, the recorder is not dated and stamped and signed 17 once it's shipped like it normally would be. At the time 18 i that that was implemented would be the time that you would 19 expect the operator to go ahead and report the discrepancy. 20 I MR. SATTERFIELD: I think it does point out the 21 need for us to pay more attention to maintenance procedures. i ~~ That's one of the things we've gotten in our plans to be { l involved in, which was worked on in the past, i 4 e# I There are a number of what I think much i ,e are much more s'o '#4 =

• 4+
• ^

N" N n'" 21 l ..ca; ye, I correct in the longer term and there are a number reasons t I why we did not attempt to address these right away. One being we were hesitant to make changes that were significant 4 l and could indeed affect the operator given he's had a tremendous amount of training already in the simulator use l J i 1 4 to what he has and we operate I think fairly carefully about i 7 l what we change that might indeed affect his capability to g l function. i l l We're also concerned about the fact that our task I c 1 10 action plan calls for a number of actions that are related to 7; reequiping the control room. It's important, I think, to take it into account the kinds of changes that we'll be t ' i making these results of those actions to make sure they're I t consistent with the kinds of corrections which we think are la i I L needed as a result of these reviews. 15 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What does longer term I6 f mean here? Does that mean prior to full power operation? MR. SATTERFIELD: No. 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But, it may just be the 19 j corrosive compulsatory simplicity in putting things on i 20 slides. But, I would have said'the first of those longer 21 l term corrective actions look pretty basic. JF u MR. S ATTERFIELD : Yeah, and they are something l i that can't be done fairly quickly. l 24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I think it's that they have i n i me 1 + w v peo mene w & l t. 4e m e4 wm w

• b

FIDP etiv 22 P AGz sc. l, I I standards. t ~ MR. SATTERFIELD: Understand what that means now, 2 i that means that 4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, that's what I'm I after. t 4 MR. SATTERFIELD: -- maybe that the requirements { 7 that are given to the operator are written in sentences that i 3 l may be 40 to 50 words long. Tha' one sentence may contain I 9 a number of different instructions. In writing procedures, i one really ought to make short crisp sentences with specific gg instructions associated with each. They're fairly simple z; things but, they make life easier on the operator during time i. i of stress. 1 i I i I think as long as one is well trained there's no 14 i question about the fact that they can be used. One just out 15 l I to look for ways by which you could make the life of the 16 i f operatnr easier. l 's ', i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD-But, what does the phrase 18 acceptable standards mean there? Are those NRC standards? 19 MR. SATTERFIELD: No. They're military standards. 20 l i An awful lot of work has been done in the area o-. standards ( 21 i i of items. w MR. DENTON: Military standards for procedure { simplicity that we've never picked up as requirements. 2A MR. SATTERFIELD: There's also a need to assess n,. -+ .u

_' X :a!v i macz sc. 23 \\. I i 1 these commuters and provide some means of establishing l 2 how well he's learned them. Those are things that are going i, l to be done over the longer term. i 4 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Now, that ought not take i years, though. l e t I ( MR. SATTERFIELD: No, I've indicated that. They 3 7 have agreed that need to go back and rewrite their procedures. It's not something that's going to get done proper prior to 3 full power. They're ought to be sufficient time allowed to 9 l retrain the operators to getting used to using new procedures i i prior to putting it into affect. I MR. DENTON: You want to hit the other three as I2 quickly as -- I 13 I i MR. SATTERFIELD: We f und the process of computer l capabilities were somewhat limited. In some of the other i 15 plants we visited really has done a considerably better job i 16 I in making use of computer capabilities within the control room. . ~: Concern here is that access to information is not as easy la i as it ought to be. One can use CRT displays and in fact, they 19 are used in controls rooms to enable the operator to call

• 0 for information.

We're often -- the cause for alarm is ~ 1. printed out immediately. It makes the job of the operator l + T' rather bit easier in determining what was the cause for an up-set condition. 24 I There's a need to make better use of mimicing in

• t f

the 1 - inn * - ' ~ "

vne : 3 1,, l 24 l nsaz ne ~ l coating, and that sort of thing is reasonably simple to do I i over the long-term. It needs to be well thought out. Probably can be done within the short-term at least certainly within I L l I 3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What is the status of I these measures as far as the l_censee is concerned as he i l 1 also agreed? I I MR. SATTERFIELD: We've gone through all these j items with the licensees in agreement with each of them and a the timing of each. He's agree, for example, on these four i longer term actions to begin looking into to make that a part of their overall control room '~ I should point out here that we have through the 13 task action plan a plan to require all licensees to review 4 14 i i their control rooms, and Sequoyah would be a part then. i3 COMMISSIONER BRALFORD: Is this something that 16 I i Sequoyah had anyway undertaken on its own? I should think 17 sometime along about last May or June as the'ce is some of i 18 the causes of the.Three Mile Island accident became clear, 19 a plan that Sequoyah's position would have been well advised 20 to undertake its own review of these things as well. l 21 l MR. SATTERFIELD: Yes, we have found that some ~, ~~ applicants have some than not. TVA had done something. i

• 9 i

~~ MR. DENTON: But, apparently made no changes. l t

• 4 MR. SATTERFIELD:

It made no changes. They are hindered like many of the other utilities, in that they do l ~

{ 25 sm o21.. osca; sc. i i t I not have human factors people to give them factors experience. l i They've indicated to us and I think are committing in a i letter to us to get that capability on more quickly than i 4 hiring through contracts. i i f My own view is that we shouldn't play the lead role l e i 1 6 in this easy time and from here out move towards having the l 7 licensee do this kind of thing so that we can be more in the l audit role. Here we're almost in the worst instance taking 3 i the detail look at these sorts of factors. 9 MR. DENTON: But, if tMre're to nore questions let ne nove i back to this one that you raised earlier about operators, Il { l operators trainings and qualifications, and so forth. !O i I Let me ask Jerry Hollonen who was involved in this l 13 i review to come up and maybe summarize distinctly, Jerry,the l 14 i i l l differences between the groups of operators that do have i 13 SRO and RO licenses and those requirements that are suscintly f6 in the action plan as now approved and what our views are on U those differences. I 18 MR. EDT.TrAEN: Harold, I just wonder if Don Skovholt l 19 would be better to address it. i 20 l MR. SATTERFIELD: Well, I'd rather have you start I Il i i i l because you know them all. So, we'll let Don -- l i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, Don can ccme up, too. l i ~. i ~~ No reason why he can't join us.

• L I

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Bring your own chair. l 1 ] COMMISSIONER GILINSKY-was als 4 *

• i NDP c lv a

i 26 i pact sc i I time in how many of the operators had previous experience I operating nuclear plants? MR. DENTON: Okay, this is why I wanted Don to A come up, because he has that information. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Bring your chair up here. 3 y 6 MR. DENTON: This is an important area, because it 7 goes to whether there's any flexibility in meeting the NTOL i list at fuel load versus that 5 percent power test or where g j does the requirement come into play. Obviously, some of ^ these operators were not trained at the time we got their ,0 l license and the way we now require. But, they're also due 11 l I to be requalified in training in the relatively near future. a I wanted you to t 'k about, Jerry, the groups of i training, what the groups were, and where they stand vis-a-vis 14 I i the most recently approved criteria as a starter. 13 l i MR. HOLLOMEN: Okay. We had a large group of them 14 all essentially with the same type of training that commenced i7 i about 1971. An initial group was examined in the January or 18 l l March period of last year. They were examined to our I 19 previous criteria, which was 70 percent overall. 20 i We did not issue licenses after those exams because I i 21 l l of TMI and because we recognized that fuel load ~ But, in knowing that they were going to be in l 1 i ~ a nonlicensed capacity we said in order to keep them up to ~1 I speed, we wanted to institute the requalification program right then. So, richt after their examinati I a

1 i NDP calv 27 i i

• *CZ N C.

l l l i i I i re-qual programs into affect. l 2 A second group wat e.amined in September of last I year. Now, they received training in addition to their 4 normal operating licensing training they received training i in the TMI issues, particularly in thermodynamics hydrolics j l ( and that area. So, all of the TMI related questions were 4 l put into their training program and when we wrote the 7 examinations for that group we wrote the basic examination l { and separate identifiable TMI related questions. 9 i g The criteria we used then for passing grades was I 70 percent overall on the non-TMI issues and 80 percent on 11 the TMI related issues. Going back to the original group i that we examined in January, since we have not looked at 13 I i them in TMI related issues, we require TVA to conduct separate i training programs on TMI related problems and administer an 13 examination to them with the criteria being 90 percent 14 successful on TMI related or we would come back down and d'* examine them ourselves. We audited the examination that TVA administered. 19 We auditored the grading that they did. We found no 20 discrepancies 21 I t l 1 I 24 i l l 15 i i

ndo jrs lI 27 I -O paGZ No, I tape i 15 fwb 80 f' I So now both of those groups, as of the end of the 2-1 l g 2 year have been examined both on the general questions that we I I 3 I would ask, and the specific TMI questions. I 4 l A third group is undergoing examination this week; i 5 l we should be finishing up with them. They have received not i 6 j only their basic training, but also TMI issues in their train-7 ing programs; those questions are factored into the examinations j l that we are administrating to them. We are holding that group 3 i 9 with a new and what will be our ongoing criteria which is jo 80 percent overall, 70 percent in each category. 1 11 i MR. DENTON: I think the issues warranted would be i t be sure that we were clear on, as if you wanted to hold 12 I

3 them all to the criteria that we've just published.

I guess i

g j

there is some in that first group you would have to retest or I 33 somthing. 16 i MR. HOLLEMAN: Some of them, we would. l 1 MR. DENTON: But, the differences don't seem sig-1., t g l nificant in view of the retraining and the tests that were given; 19 that's the judgment that I wanted you to -- 1 l MR. HOLLEMAN: That's right. We brought them i 20 t through the various criteria we've administered as we've j ,1 4 approached the point we are at right now; we feel that everyone! l i I is of equal qualification. 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I'm not clear on how many 24 i of these operators have actually been granted licenses; I mean i i ec me I

ndo jrs 28 { i pact sc. 2 [ l I l 1 not the ones that are being tested now, but -- i MR. HOLLEMAN: Yes. But, at this point, we have issued 18 senior reactor operator licenses, and 6 reactor i 4 operator licenses. I e COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Does that cover both of the l h first two groups? l 3 MR. HOLLEMAN: Yes, out of the first two groups. I l' So, there are 24 licensed people there and the reason l l that there are more seniors than operators is that those in-9 t I ~ dividuals had the qualifications to go immediate for a senior 10 l 1 license. 11 i f i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And, how many are in the last 12 group? } MR. HOLLEMAN: In this group, there are 12 undergoing 14 i examination. If they are all successful, we end up with 36 15 i licensed people at the plant. 16 COMMISSIONER GIT.INSKY: Are these all for Number l? 17 l I MR. HOLLEMAN: Yes. 18 I l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What would be involved in re-i 19 testing the first group? I 20 MR. HOLLEMAN: Well, what would be involved would be l

• 1 l

putting them back through some additional training. We would i f ~, ~ have to sit down and prepare another examination for them and i i i i administer it and grade it. It is a time consuming proposition : I t and I, personally, don't think it is warranted. I think we have; 3

29 ndp jrs { pacz sc. -3 i i l brought them up. I 2 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What would you propose to do, I if anything, before full power operation? j MR. DENTON: Well, these people will be the first to 4 3 have to undergo requalification training. MR. HOLLEMAN: Well, yes; they are undergoing requal i 3 training right now. MR. DENTON: Once you get your license, doesn't mean you're exempt from furthur training, and periodically you have 9 to be retrained on all of the new issues that have come up i i ( anyway. 11 i ) MR. HOLLEMAN: And, will be held to the n;7 criteria. i l i MR. DENTON: And when would they roll around to the 13 ~ l requal program in a normal course of events? 14 t i MR. HOLLEMAN: Well, right now, they have completed 13 j their first year -- the first group has completed their first year and will be undergoing their annual examination anyway 17 j that the utility administers, but held to the new criteria. I 18 i l MR. DENTON: There really isn't any such thing as i 19 i a static operator licensing training program, because there are always new factors being lear.ned from LER's. The requal "I j program in intended to keep picking it up, and I guess based i ~ on the actions that we are taking on that first group, to go l I2 back -- in your judgment, based on your review of the records 9 4d and individuals, but it doesn't seem like the retesting would be i I e

i ndo e irs j 30 I i , cz ye, I 24 1 manditory. But, I ?:' vant you to focus on the fact that it f 2 doesn't literally comply with the near-term OL list that we've l l just approved. A COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Presumably, the low power test l Phase serves in the training function. I MR. SKOVHOLT: Yes, and we have an intensified train-l 3 n ing effort which will be conducted during the -- e i l MR. DENTON: And, of course, I guess, no operator license at an operating plant complies, either, with the 9 I criteria there, too. 10 I i MR. HOLLEMAN: That's exactly right; they are going r 11 to get it in every discovery. 12 MR. DENTON: So, there has got to be a staged program i 13 i l' to bring them up. 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, what I want to know is 15 I what sort of review is there of the training going on during l 16 this low pcwer test phase? Is this something that you will go 17 i back and take a look at? s 18 I MR. DENTON: Well, what's going on is the requalifi-i 19 cation training. I 20 MR. HOLLEMAN: Yes, the requal training; but, I l

• 1 think you are talking about how are we going to get involved

~, 22 i I with low power training -- l i ~ COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, are you going to get l 4 involved?

ndp jrs I 31 i sacz we. .-5 I I I i MR. HOLLEMAN: I'm certain we are, the details haven't! i l been worked out. 2 I 2 l MR. ROSS: Pardon me. Wehaveanoptionalslideviewj l that we are going to show at the end of this session on the A i NRR involvement of the four to six months of this special test ] I' } program, which included, among others, the OLB examiner as part ' 6 i 7 of the involvement, reviewing the records of what's going on g during the zero power, low power test scopes. 9 MR. HOLLEMAN: I'm hoping that some of us will get g down to participate in it, too. It would be excellent training. 3 f MR. DENTON: What I really felt a low power testing { program to be a way that people from the Operator Licensing { g^ l i Branch, the procedure reviewers, and the desingers are able l I f to check out the performance of people in the procedures at i the plant in what really will be a proof test of their ability i IS t to operate. j 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Nell, I expect that somebody i I7 [ l would go forward on this basis if the Commission is going to la want to hear about this issue before going to the next stage 19 l of operation. I think it is something that you ought to follow 20 closely. l i } MR. DENTON: You did ask us earlier, what previous 22 i i l experience these cperators have had, and I think in terms of i ~., none. 24 MR. SKOVHOLT: Well, that is an, I think, unfair i ?_

ndp_ jrs 32 j , cz se, z-5 I i oversimplification. I The staffing practices of utilities do vary to their l i i initial nuclear plants, so that some utilities tend to turn i l to outside cources, such as nuclear, maybe; others like to 3 take experienced fossil plant operators from within their i l 6 system and train them suitably. i I 7 TVA has taken the latter approach. Of the 18 licensed! 3 I senior operators thus far, all of them are from the TVA system; 9 9 of the 18 have more than 10 years of fossil plant experience; p3 l 8 of the others have more than 5 years. The only man with less l 6 1; i than 5 years of fossil plant experience is 5 years of Browns l i Ferry experience, including as a licensed operator, and that's a i

BWR, I.

d i I But, this is the first PWR in a deviated system, and 14 I I therefore, these people have not been participants in operating l l, organizations of PWR's in the past. I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What was the BWR experience? 1,, MR. SKOVHOLT: Browns Ferry. 18 I i l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I know; but, what was the ex-19 I i tent of it? 20 l MR. SKOVHOLT: He was there for 5 years, including the-I 21 i l last 2 years as a licensed operator. 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So, 1 of the 18 was a licensed! t operator at a nuclear plant. { 24 MR. SKOVHOLT: Actually, a second one also was a

• J

ndp. jrs t 33 l l mact s c. s s -6 l i Browns Ferry licensedYoperator, but he had extensive fossi' 1 I experience. l l l' s COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The 2 of the 18 -- i i l 4 MR. SKOVHOLT: The 2 of the 18 were Browns Ferry l I l licensed operators, yes. 3 i Now, in the training program, which is structured to l 0 I i i operate PWR's, this involves an addition to the simulator 7 j l training on the plant's specific Sequoyah simulator, it includes l i 4 f l at least three months at an operating PWR; as a trainee. An 9 i i operating PWR owned by some other utility. This is all part 10 of the structured way to bring them up into the PWR motor 11 t i operation. And this, in the Sequoyah case, will be supplemented 12 by these special training exercises that are going to be per-13 l l formed during a low power test phase, l u I 1 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's see; you said of the i 1.5 18, but there are 36 altogether. 14 i MR. SKOVHOLT: Well, there are 18 currently licensed 17 i senior operators and 6 currently licensed operators. i 18 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right. i 19 MR. SKOVHOLT: 12 more undergoing exmmination. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right. j 'l l MR. SKOVHOLT: So far, I've just addressed the first i 18. Now, if I take the 6 that are licensed as reactor operators 1 they all have at least two year of fossil plant experience and they've all been at least -- all of these 24 people have been i f

=act we.34 l -de : irs l l .-7 i i i I at Sequoyah undergoing plant systems checkout and operation in 2 I the pre-operational test program for 2 or more years. f i 2 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But, of the 24 -- l i 1 MR. SHOVHOLT: One of the operators was formerly a l Browns Ferry operator. e i 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Of the 6. i 7 MR. SHOVHOLT: Yes. OMNISSIONFR GIU1NSKY: So, you are up to 3. I l i MR. SHOVHOLT: Three out of 24. 9 { COMMISSION:;R GILINSKY: And, what about the other 12 10 } that are undergoing e.' amination right now? 11 t t l MR. SHOVHOL1. m sorry; I didn't pull together statistics on them. It agh we were just talking about the i 13 I license people. 14 I MR. HANRAHAN: Is that correct then -- I understand 13 that the senior operator does not have to have operational 16 experience? 17 MR. SHOVHOLT: He has to have all of the operational 8 experience that he gets as part of the structured program, 19 which includes the simulator training and the observation 20 training at another PWR. He does not have to have, formally,

1 have been a licensed operator of a PWR.

i i MR. DENTON: Now, that's a new requirement that is l going in, though; and that we are requiring that applicants l '~ I .g ~ or SOR's ..n the future, serve as OR's. i 15

ndo: jrs 35 ,,cz se, i i t-8 1 1 MR. HANRAHAN: Yes, that's correct. I 2 l MR. DENTON: That's part of the new -- l MR. HANRAHAN: In ongoing examintions, now, not in l l the initial -- 4 g MR. DENTON: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is this state of affairs -- i can be characterized as not un-common or not unusual or -- s I MR. SHOVHOLT: It's not un-common for the first unit l of it's type in a utility. When you get down to later TVA I units at other stations in subsequent years, the characterization 10 l would be quite different. They will draw heavily from Sequoyah and Browns Ferry to staff those plants. 12 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: As I say for myself, I am l 13 I I i a little surprised at the number of persons who have previously 14 i operated plants that is as low as it is. 1.5 I MR. ROSS: Even so, recall what Mr. Kellogg has 16 stated that we had asked -- had gotten an agreement that West-17 inghouse personnel with PWR experience would be added on a 18 I l shift basis, at least during the time of a low power -- 19 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Who have operated plants? MR. ROSS: I don't have a description of whether -- Il j MR. COTTREL: How have physically been SOR licensed l ~ on PWR's. l ~~ COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I see. I i

• L MR. COTTREL:

This may not be current at this point l 1!

36 "^r pacz sc. 2.- l I l and TVA is reviewing resumes for proposed individuals who -- l e' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And that is a commitment? l 3 MR. COTTRELL: Yes, sir. 4MISSIONER GILINSKY: That sounds like an m i f important one -- to me. I i 6 i MR. ROSS: Well, it's, it's a commitment. I have I l not read the commitment. We've had it orally. I, we don't i 8 l review the written material, which is one reason, you know, on 9 our own piece of work. 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I'd like to hear about it j I l 11 i next time we meet. 12 i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Lee, what will -- they will l 13 be there in what capacity, as advisers? I i 14 l MR. DENTON: Yes. I. 13 (Pause.) 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Thank you. 16 17 MR. DENTON: Don't we turn next to Bill Cottrell? I 13 And let him give a say as to the plant. 19 MR. COTTRELL: We completed our, our inspection 20 [ program on the construction phase, the preoperational testing i i 21 phase for the quality assurance for operations phase. And as 3 much of the prestart-up test program as, as can be conducted l l 23 up to the point of actually beginning to witness the, the i conduct of the test. 74 We have presently identified no items other than i 3

\\ 37 6 PAGE Nc, I f I 1 f verification of these NTOL commitments; we have verification 2 l that they are in place and they're all items we have talked 3 l about. 4 i l Other than those verifications, we have no items i I which would prohibit entry to the plant into the fuel-loading f 6 i staffs. 7 MR. DENTON: All right. Well, I think this com-3 pletes the items I had on the near-term risk cover. Let's go i 9 j new to what I call the f ree TMI users, the ones that were 10 under review at the time of the accident. And these included I l 11 i i the, the unresolved safety issues. i 12 I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Without TMI, Harold, when i 13 l would this -- when would you've expected this plant to have i 14 l received -- well, when would it have loaded fuel? i l I l' (Pause.) i i I0 l MR. DENTON: Well, we issued the original SCR about Iw' i a year ago, wasn't it? 18 MR. ROSS: We had, we've had, we've had for some I9 years the, the two TVA plants: Sequoyah and -- they've been 'O going back and forth in the schedule, first one and then the 21 l other. i 22 There may be an interaction when they, it was l 22 obvious that the staf f wasn ' t finishing its review. The labor i l on Sequoyah went slower than it otherwise would have. -i 24 i 15 So, it, it could have been as early as last summer, i

i -c 38 i PAGE NC. i 1 1 i if more people had put on the job. I don't know -- l j l Bill, do you -- as far as you're concerned -- do you qualify -- 4 I i MR. DENTON: Well, we would have had to await com-I t ~ pletion of the plant, that sort of thing. 1 0 When did that -- that was -- as I recall, it wasn't I completed in a pre-TMI standard until about the end of the i 3 year. 9 MR. COTTRELL: Yes, because when I was down there, i 10 there was still pre-op checkout going on. And let's see, II l didn ' t -- wasn ' t they tearing a pump down? 12 l Yes, sir, they were -- they had a react fuel pump i 13 i going in, I believe, and you were down to, to replace the I 14 thermocouple. j i IS MR. ROSS: Okay, while I'm going through some 16 bookkeeping on the pre-TMI issues -- l 17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's see. Will this cover 18 the exemotions? I 19 MR. ROSS: It will. It will. I I 20 COMMISSIONER GT_LINSKY: Okay, good enough. And the i 21 containment too? \\, l a j MR. ROES: If that should come up -- a little book-I l I keeping. l l

4 MR. DENTON

Well, on the, the status of the plant l 3 with regard to the hydrogen evolution of 5 percent, I'veackedl i i

39 ? -o Pact so. i I 1 I i i that be incorporated in this afternoon's presentation. 2 l l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Specifically related to the 3 Sequoyah? 4 I [ MR. DENTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Okay, fine. 6 MR. DENTON: And we have a report coming to the 7 Commission within a week on the whole question of hydrogen l' evolution within payments of all sizes. 8 9 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Fine. 10 MR. ROSS: Okay. Let's go to the next slide. I il i i Just a couple of comments on the chronology which we 19 just talked about. The, our SER, which is the NUREG 0011, of I:3 I, l' which I have a copy. It was published last March. We met 14 with the ACRS. There 's a notice down there at the bottom -- l Ic in April, May, and then _ne interim letter resulted frcm a I meeting with the committee this past December, l MR. DENTON: I think it 's probably worthwhile to I8 note that we don't have a letter from the ACRS on coeration 1 19 of --

• 0 l

MR. ROSS: That's correct. II l MR. DENTON: Partially because of the issues related i l 22 to the high condenser. f 22 MR. ROSS: They've also indicated they'd like to 24 review the results of the special test program, along with us l' after the program. There are a number of items, don't forget,i

t c__ 40 Pact No. i I that the ACRS expects to hear on. 2 Did note that it, it's beer. almost 10 years since i 2 i the CP was issued, May 27th. f 4 { They -- I think -- let's look at the next slide I ~ t briefly. I believe this is what Commissioner Gilinsky I 6 l indicated that he wanted the Commission not make -- the i 7 l elements of an operating license. I I l A little exception -- 9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Had there been an LWA issued l 10 1 before the CP issued? II 5 MR. DENTON: I don't think we had LWAs -- d, i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Or something like it? 4 I IU j COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: You've got to go and dig, and i I4 you didn 't run into the Atomic Energy Act until you hi t the I* grade level, which was probably the greatest inducement to i 16 underground siting that -- 1 17 j (Laughter. ) 18 O}MISSIOtER HENDRIE: there ever was. And we should have 19 left it on the books. 20 l SPEAKER: Exactly. I 21 { MR. SHAPAR: I think exemptions were granted which i 12 were a partial equivalent of limited work authorizations. i, 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But we don't know whether 2A they were here or not. i, i 15 MR. ROSS: The only thing, as Bob with the slide

a 41 pacz sc. I l 1 pointed out, there would be some special restrictions ? I l attendant to the special test program. We've got a little i l more work to do on exactly what the shape and the form of the l proposed license would be and, obviously, some Commission I interaction. 4 I don't think it's useful to focus on this now. I l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Can you just remind me, just i 3 historical curiosity, when the CP was issued and when the 9 application was filed on rhis? 10 MR. ROSS: Well, we can go back one slide. It was i 11 i May 27, 1970, was the CP. And it's dated October '68, going i i 12 l on 12 years now. 13 Pre-TMI letters, one more slide. l 14 l Next slide then. I 15 This is just a quick bookkeeping. Our SER discusses i 39 ladders which were in four categories. From our March '79 16 17 l SER there were five outstanding issues. Thirteen more came to ja light since March, other than PMI again. Our SER also noted 39 17 items we wanted TVA to confirm or, in some instances, the 20 staff had to confirm. And there were four positions we want on it concern-i 22 ing work to be done, after the last position, i 73 And if we go to Ene summary chart next, the bottom i 7, line here is 45 percent operations conce;: -- they were all I satisfied.

l 42 4 c PAGE No. I I Now I'd like to go to the next slide, which has a 2 depiction on it. I 2 Next slide. I 1 Of the 3 9 issues -- in the interest of time, what I I i 3 l was going to do -- stick out -- you may not be interested in \\ l 6 this area here tonight; I don't think it's resolved. Pick out ' 7 what I make of the five ones that may, you want to focus on l first. And then if there's more time, we can go back. 3 9 And the numbers that we'll focus on are 7, which is i to the foundations; 8, concerning a flaw in the reactor vessel i head; 14, the bypass leakage which is relevant to the f act tha 11 l 12 l Unit 2 is being built, still being built while the Unit 1 was q-

3 l

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What were the pre-TM1 issues i I in operator training?

g I

gy MR. ROSS: I think we just -- it was just a routine I

4 write-up.

Let me consult this number 13. 37, (Pau se. ) 33 MR. ROSS: I don't think we'll need -- g oPEAKER: I'll try to find it. ,0 6 i l MR. ROSS: It's right here. U e l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, why don't you just take ,,a t I that last -- i MR. ROSS: The 20 concerns the pressure-temperature 2a S i i limits on the vessel, and that's where we'll pick up Appendix ! 15 i i

i l A3 -1 P Aaz nc. l I a I I G. And 24, I think we ought to have a discussion on the 2 l environmental qualifications, because there 's still some work there that's got to be done before we~would want to go above 4 i 5 percent. I e l Now, since three of them in a common technical area -- ~ t 3 l 7, 8, and 20 -- are the engineering area of ESS, I've Jim l Knight here -- 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Weren't there two other l 9 l appendices that require exemption? 10 MR. ROSS: There is a slide on Appendix J, on the t II i containment airlock testing. And I believe we can discuss that I 12 under Item 14, which is on this list of five, i IU j CO.MISSIONER GI.sINSKY: I would appreciate it if you l I4 l would cover those. i I3 MR. ROSS: The amendment to the, to Appendix J -- or 14 H and J -- are running, with all the glasses in this year, it's 17 a race to see which one gets modified first. 18 Nevertheless, items 7, 8, and 20 all concern l engineering; so we can do those three in that order. 19 20 COMMIS!sIONER GILINSKY: Why don't we turn to one? 21 MR. ROSS: Item 7 is the foundations. There had i C l been a problem on several areas in that site with f oundations.. 22 There'd been some undue settlement in one of the valve rooms, f I 24 I and they had to go in and modify the structure, drill some 3 I rather large holes, pour some more concrete, and then monitor l

i e ncz so. 44 T 1 i the settlement thereafter. And that seemed to, seems to have 2 I I fixed it. 2 l j One area that was open until just a month ago had to a do with foundation, a pile foundation, of the waste packaging 5 area and the cor.duitdementalizer waste-evaporator building, which is right next to the, the auxiliary building -- but, morc' 7 l, importantly, a large electrical conduit, an eight-foot by 3 l eight-foot square conduit, containing all the power from the 9 l diese.1 generator to the main building -- was underneath this 10 l J bu.t lding. 11 The concern was, was the foundation adequate in terms of either normal or, or seismic-loaded. We, we had a site i z ". visit abou t, an additional site visit, about a month ago; and 14 as a result of some photographs and some further studies con-18 l c l-d at the pile supporting that building, indeed did go to i 16 bedrock and would hold the load. I That item is the item on foundations I want to bring 18 to your attention. And Jim Knight here is the lead of the 19 j engineering party; if you want to go into more discussion on l 20 it, he's here. Il MR. SKOVHOLT: I might, aside from the photographs U that looked -- they had done rock borings, where they had gonei I l 23 down, bored into the area at the foot of the pile. j 24 They have done two. The results were somewhat I l 5 ambiguous, largely because the rock is undulating. We had i

l i 45 t ~3 pace.we. i i i 1 i asked them to do four others, which they did. The results 2 were quite clear: all confidence now those piles are right i ~ l down to the rock, whcre they should be. A f l MR. DENTON: You'd asked what was outstanding in 1 l l operators. I can't tell from today's, from today's write-up: I 6 l probably that they had that, that the operator licensing was 7 l still to be conducted. 3 ,f Anyone want to volunteer what was outstanding in o operator licensing a year ago? I 10 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But that is -- whatever it Il was, is considered resolved -- or caught up in whatever pro-5 I2 grams we've launched since then. I3 MR. ROSS: One of the phenomena we see is that the 14 TMI and the non-TMI matters are not mutually exclusive. And 15 in, in fact, item 4 on the list is emergency preparedness, 3 16 which also is over in the TMI list. II l MR. DENTON: Anything else on the foundation? 18 MR. BENAROYA: This is one I didn't -- you're still 19 talking about fire protection. I think you ought to say a few 20 l words about that one. 21 MR. ROSS: It's so good. Our fire-protection review 22 of Mr. Benaroya 's here and -- maybe we ought to bring good 22 news -- 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would appreciate a few I 15 words from him --

pacz sc. 46 .e I I I i l MR. ROSS: We have a very long write-up -- 2 Vic, why don't you come forward? SPEAKER: It has a certain relevance here? 4 1 ( (Pause.) l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Sit down. Pull a chair up. I 6 This is a do-it-yourself Commission. I j (Pause.) l I MR. BENAROYA: We have reviewed the fire protection 9 without consultants. We've been to t'. site and looked at the 10 plant in detail, and we should -- our executive board on July g 11 l 5th, 1979, came up with a list of items that have to be i 12 modified. Everything has been modified to date, and the fire-i 13 I protection system evaluation is now complete and -- l l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: 14 And complies with all current, i 15 NRC requirements? j 16 MR. BENAROYA: That's correct. l 17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You're happy with it? 18 MR. BENAROYA: Very happy. I 19 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I think that 's pretty l 20 important. i 21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Sequoyah, then, would not be I

2 among the plants that had more work to do in this area in order; I

i to satisfy the post-Browns Ferry 's -- 1 24 MR. BENAROYA: That's correct. Everything has been 1 i 3 implemented. i i

4 -_c pact No. 47 i j (Pause.) 2 l 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Thank you. 3 MR. ROSS: On item 8 there was discovered in the 4 l l closure head a, a flaw -- the reactor vessel closure head of 3 unit number one. The it appears to be on the order of 1.6 to I 6 1.2 inches. We asked for some calculations on how fast it might grow and, if it did grow, what would happen -- what would 3 be the safety significance? 9 t We reviewed the response, believed that TVA had a 10 conservative growth calculation and specified an in-service 11 I inspection program to follow it for awhile to set how well it i 12 l grows. I3 This would not be a, a full -- a low-power limit. i I# As far as we're concerned, we do have an acceptable program new. But it is, I think, a sensitive issue; so, so we're i 14 prepared to discuss it in more detail -- II i COMMISSION GILINSKY: Is this the one that, that i II I relates to an exemption of -- l i 19 j MR. ROSS-No. 20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: But we do have two pages of i Il text in our SER on this subject -- 22 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right. I l 23 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Let's see: the head floor i 24 doesn't require an exemption. It's been determined to be 1 l 3 acceptable under appropriate code cases of section 3 of the i i

I t c 48 pact sc. I t i i 1 i ASME Code. l MR. ROSS: Right. It just seen.s like it's the kind j i 3 of thing that kind of stands out. It might provoke more i 1 discussion, so -- that 's why I, I thought it might. f 3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: It certainly bore considerable l l I 6 i investigation, but I think that investigation has been done I I and the conclusions are okay. 8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And how do you summarize the 9 reasons for it being okay? l 10 MR. BOYLE: TVA submitted a proctor toughness, a l i 11 proctor mechanic 's evaluation of the crack growth. They used 12 very conservative assumptions for all the anticipated loadings 13 that would occur during the next 40 years of life. 14 And we had accepted that. However, we wanted I 15 physical proof that their crack growth rates were reasonable. 16 So we made them put in an augmented in-service program over I 17 what section 11 requires. And this was checked by crack Ig growth rate. And it is found that crack-growth rate exceeds 19 i what they predicted. They required to repair,-replace, or

g another mechanic's evaluation -- to prove that it's still 21 acceptable for in-service for -- if it does meet their crack-growth evaluation, they put the f all back in the regular 2

3 section 11 in-service insoection program.

i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: In any. case, you, you feel

4 I

I l that, that the periodic inspection would pick up any departure! 15 I

I t 1 l pact sc. 49 l i i l' from what we think will be the, the future of that cra k. 2 l i MR. BOYLE: Now they have a good bt.seline inspection 3 l l for section 11, compared to -- should be able to pick up any 1 i { growth at all. 5 COhMISSIONER GILINSKY: Okay. Thank you. { 6 MR. SKOVHOLT: For the record, I might add, it's l 7 Mike Boyle, from our materials branch. i f MR. ROSS: And rince he's concerned with item 20 9 i also, we'll go right into that. 10 I i The pressure temperature limits, item 20 on the i 11 i i slide, has to do with the heat-up and cool-down. And here's p*, { where we find that unit 1 would need a partial exemption from I 7d l Appendix G. t Id COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are we in the process of l I*e l l 2 hanging Appendix G? i 16 MR. DENTON: You know, it's been so long since we've J l issue? license, I've, I've forgotten about the details of these 18 I exemptions. But the very last license that was issued did i 19 require -- l 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: When was that, by the way? 21 l You're right, now that you rert.an it. l 12 MR. DENTON: That there a number of requirements i 22 which were, were written to be immediately applicable because i 24 the plants had been designed under earlier codes, could not I l be met without replacing the vessel or changing the capsule 15

-m 50 Pace N C. I I specimen holder tnd this kind of thing. 2 l Maybe, Jim, maybe you should sammarine what -- I t \\ ~ l think they 're all in your area, ~ i 4 i l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Could you explain what the i exemption is? I 6 l MR. SKOVHOLT: Okay, I think -- the expert present I 7 l is Mike. Let let Mike -- l 3 I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: All right, fine. 9 MR. SKOVHOLT: -- lead it off. I can fill in. 10 l MR. BOYLE: The requirement in Appendix G that if 11 you give an exemption to, is for a minimum upper-shelf SHARPE le i impact energy at the beginning of vessel life, such that older 13 vessel life due to radiation damage, that upper-shelf will not i f drop below specified value. Id I3 I Sequoyah, when they tested the reactor vessel i i 16 materials, f ound that the SHARPE upper-shelf energy had about 17 200 degrees just below what we require. We require 75-foot 18 counts. They -- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Would you remind me about 19 I 20 this upper shelt? l 21 MR. BOYLE:

Yes, t

i I As you test predict steels -- 1 23 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You ' re talking about -- 24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: It's a fracture-toughness 15 value; it's a function of temperature. l

1 pact sc. lI ./ B I j MR. BOYLE: And it's a sigmortal shape. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right. l MR. BOYLE: Thef were testing it by what they thought 4 i was the upper-shelf tempera ture, and found that the upper-enercy i ( I was slightly below what's required. There's nothing in ASME ~ 6 Code that says "and you can 't test at a h'gher temperature andl l hopefully get a higher value to meet our acceptance standards." 8 l We found that the higher temperature was at the 9 upper-shelf energy, decreased markedly down at the 50 to 60 l foot pound range. That increased the temperature again; it 10 i 11 f kind of went back up to 72. So we accepted all the data on 12 l face value and issued the exemption, based on the data in the I-i I 13 or the first, I believe, 9.2 effective full power rudders. I la During that period it woula still meet Appendix G, I 13 even with radiation damage. 16 MR. SKOHVOLT: That is by, by saying " accepting the 17 data in the region of the anomoly," what would be worst case, I 18 the most conservative instance? l 19 MR. ROSS: I think, Commissioner Kennedy, the last 20 { that we approached the Commission on this was about a year ago on McGuire. And I, I recall processing those documents. That's 21 i the last case I remember. l i

3 And I believe you asked when would we have to stop 6

24 doing this? And I guess that's when the appendices he changed, and I don't -- 3 i

l t 1 pact No. 52 7 l I i l Do you have the schedule on that? I 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What is going to happen? Are i 2 we going to be changing the appendices? Or are the newer 4 reactors going to be in compliance with it? f I MR. SKOVHOLT: We will be -- I think there 's a danger 6 here of confusing two things. There are changes to the 7 appendices, that relate to the location of the capsule, of 3 specimen capsule, and other features that don 't relate to the 9 inherent safety of the vessel. 10 The issue that Mike is talking about here is not i 11 i something that's subject to change. If we have a requirement, I i 12 i there were difficulties that requirement, the data seemed 13 anomolous, we took the moct conservative avence and said, 14 "Even doing that, the plant, the vessel is acceptable for an 13 extended period of time." We will then have samples to check, 16 and we can get back into an orderly review, i 17 j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Where does the exemption I jg come in? j9 MR. SKOVHOLT: Okay. I 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: In other words, if you say 7j even taking the most conservative interpretation of the data, )i MR. SKOVHOLT: Two things. My turn now. 7 j i i The exemption comes in such that after a period of 4. 1 time, when the radiation damay; causes the upper shelf to 4 4 drop, you require a minimum upper shelf at the end of vessel A 15

53 pact No. I i t i in 50-foot pounds. They will not meet that. 2 l i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, so is, is the exemption 1 I in allowing them to go forward with a vessel which may only be 4 l acceptable for less than 40 years, or whatever the standard in s t l t dhat regulation is? i 6 MR. BOYLE: We've allowed them to go on now just for 7 I i those f ew years, and knowing the fact that generic test A-ll, l ) reactor vessel materials toughness, should be resolved for -- 3 9 before this period is over. l 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But -- II l MR. BOYLE: Recommendations from that i I2 l COMMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But the toughness will meet; i 8 I3 all these requirements for the period of time that, that you I Id have accepted. I mean, that is, that is, that's your view. I l I" MR. BOYLE: Actually, it will be slightly less than j 16 what we required. However, our evaluation determined the 17 pressure-temperature-limit calculations of -- or recommendaticr 18 l of Appendix G of section 3 of the Code. I 19 SPEAKER: I think we ought to play that over again, i 20 because there's too many -- 21 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I thought you said, "Even l taking the most conservative view, it will meet the Appendix G

2 i

i requirements for" nine-point-something years. I 24 MR. BOYLE: Upper shelf will actually drop slightly is below what Appendix G intensity of our part 50 requires.

t o 54 pact sc. 1 1 i l i However, taking the prediction of that upper shelf, 2 i going back into section 3 of the Code, doing a fraction i 3 mechanics analysis, we have found that the pressure temperature 4 l limits have been specified for this plan, will still meet our I e overall requirements for safety. It will not, there will be ~ 6 l no less a margin of safety filed for this plant in this period i 7 l of time. I MR. SKOVHOLT: Useful to pursue this just a little I i I f urther ? t 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would appreciate any i II { clarification you can offer. i I2 MR. SKOVHOLT: Keep in mind that we have a limit for I I3 fracture toughness, and one could call it " arbitrary." i I 14 So we don' t want vessels dropping below that. That's, i 15 those 50-foot pound limit -- I4 We don't want them dropping belcw that after their even if they 've been irradiated -- we don 't want them{ 17

lifetime, i

18 dropping that. So we want you to start somewhere above there. i 19 { Mike is saying, "Now, taking this conservative 20 approach that we've taken, we see that the ender was nine -- 21 { MR. BOYLE: Nine-point-two. I i 2 MR. SKOVHOLT: Nine-point-two effective full-power 23 years. They would count on a calculation basis. They would 24 drop somewhat below that. So we're -- n We want to axempt, we are saying. l

I 1 nact so. 55 i i 1 But again, again that's an arbitrary limit. We're i f saying we've looked at it, we -- n* COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, but up to that point, i L L they will be above it. Is, is that right? I e MR. BOYLE: Not for the entire period, no. } 6 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So we are -- l I f MR. BOYLE: At some point. i 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSNY: You wou.'.d be authorizing 9 operation with the, the toughness trunk dropping below, some-10 I what below, the standard of Appendix G. I i l 11 MR. BOYLE: However, it's not dramatically below. 12 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And you regard it as, as 13 still meeting the basic safety requirements on these vessels, I 14 i which are stated where now? i MR. SKOVHOLT: Mike was referring to the fact that 14 I when we keep control over this matter, by having in the tech 17 specs pressure temperature limits -- 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I see. l 19 l MR. SKOVHOLT: You can't pressurize that vessel over i

o

) a certain amount -- l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I see. So you -- 1 i 2 MR. SKOVHOLT: Unless you're at a certain temperature, i 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So you regard that, those I 2A limits as having taken care of the problem. i 3 MR. SKOVHOLT: Yes.

I t -c j pacz sc. 56 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: For this period, for the 2 1 period of time that you, that you mentioned. 2 MR. BOYLE: It should preclude any possibility for 1 { later on. l l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Okay. 6 MR. ROSS: Commissioner Gilinsky, I believe we have q, -- 7 it's year or two old paper on this. And it might be useful if I 3 we resurrected -- 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I remember it dimly and 10 i would find it useful, I think. II l MR. ROSS: All right. Well, on a generic sense, 1 19 i l we 'll send that down. IU I think on a last point, these are, these are -- we N would be predicting that it would drop -- 15 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No, no. I understand that i 16 I these are calculations and projections, yes. I II MR. ROSS: We do -- l 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right. Right, I understand l 19 l that. 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD,: I just have one question at 21 l a, a, simpler level in there. I 22 l What is the meaning of the 50-foot-pound figure in i 23 i comparison -- compared to what is normally experienced?

What, 24 what are, what are you worried about?

What would it take to j i i i 15 get you there? What event would it take? I I

57 sacz we.- i MR. SKOVHOLT: Where the phenomenon we're concerned l l a i with here is, is fracture toughness and -- the safety concern I 7 i j would be cracking or rupture of the vessel. ~ 4 I l MR. DENTON: It's intended to keep the vessel I f ductile, so you don't have brittle tearing. e i 0 MR. SKOVHOLT: A metal can be strong. It can have 7 high strength but be brittle. And if it's brittle and there's 8 I flaws, then these flaws can grow; cracks can grow. Given that 9 there are flaws in, in all structures, we would-try to keep 10 them, particularly the vessel, very, very ductel. So even 11 though a crack may be present, It won't grow. The 50-foot-12 pounds is a figure which keeps, assures that that vessel is 13 very ductel. l 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Thank you very much. 15 MR. ROSS: There's, there 's two more items that I i 16 think are worth attention. On the list up there is item 14, on the subject of 17 18 bypass leakage; and if Milstead would come up -- I think he's 19 here. I l 20 l The, this is a two-unit station; and there 's a, a i i 21 l pumpdown procedure or a system that's supposed to draw a r t j partial vacuum on a portion of the auxiliary building, where 73 leakage might occur. As long as unit 2 is being built, there's i I I

4 aninteractionthatyoucan'tdrawasgoodavacuumonsomeofj l

i

c the areas as you'd like to, or as fast as you'd like to.

I c macz we. 38 I l l l 7 i i And this has hade a difference in our dose calculationL I 2 And there's also a provision that we noted in our SER on this j l l subject, which is 15.4.1 of the SER, that this a 5-percent hold.l q I l Because the engineering safety features pumproom can 't be drawn l 4 J to the, to the quarter-inch water vacuum that we'd like. And I i 6 that would mean that the potential leakage there wouldn't be I 7 collected in filters. l 3 This difference in bypass leakage is, assumption 9 versus measurement, has also changed the dose calculation for i

o the design basis accident.

\\ \\ It still meets criteria. MR. MILSTEAD: They 're really two dif ferent subjects. i. i MR. ROSS: Right. But the f actor is covered in two ad dif f erent places in the SER. So we want to point that out to L4 l you and, and, if there's any discussion on it, further question l1 i I or discussion along this line we can get into that. I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Well, let's see, without Unit 17 2 on line you can't be sure -- have they, had they attempted to draw on it and measured some pressures in it? I MR. COTTRELL: Yes, sir, they have. 20 7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: And they can't make the, can't Il j make the quarter-inch negative all over. O MR. COTTRELL: They can make the cuarter-inch I 22 negative up on the refueling floor itself, between the iI 24 containment buildings. When you get down to the level, the I i

i O 8 & CZ N o. CO

r i

I I i l bottom level of the auxiliary building, where the RHR and 2 I containment spray are, the figure they can maintain is something; j like .05, instead of.25. That's a -- I i 4 MR ROSS: It's expected when they finish and put up l l ? t some walls and what-not, that its' well. 6 MR. COTTRELL: That gets well in that you have a 7 larger duct-work system to actually, actually draw through and 3 handle a higher flow rate for, for exhaust gas. 9 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Any indication of positive 10 l pressures in the tests? I i 11 i MR. COTTRELL: No, sir. l 12 MR. ROSS: Any other question on it?

3 l

SPEAKER: I know we're about out of time. I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No, you, you've got time. g, MR. ROSS: The next issue is always fruitful discus-l g l Td Tape 2 sion. It's number 24, on g ad rcp 17 l 18 I 19 20 i i 21 I i I i 21 ? i

NDP. ndp l ~ i i sact sc en I 3. i I environmental qualification in view of that. We noted ACRS l has to do with it is about a five percent hold item.. l There are some things we want done before going 4 l beyond five percent. One of the differential pressure 4 5 transmittor on the reactor coolant flow measurement device 1 6 l needs some qualification and we have a replacement program i l towards the embarking transmittors that develop that are 7 a satisfactory for a couple of years but needed an additional 9 replacement program. There is not a 100% write off on the 10 general subj ect of environmental qualification. I As we have discussed this to a considerable extent, l'l

7 l

we do have and this sizeable margin for them which is part of item two and it is also flowing from the ACRS advice, we 3 are continuing our margin studies and I think I am concerned ,4 l l on qualification more than environmentally. } MR. SATTERFIELD: That is right, all the seismic 14 j qualifications are resolved, as far as environmental qualif-i i 17 l l ications are concerned, we still have some questions outstanding 18 l regarding equipment outside containment, the equipment did 19 i b not see harsh environment. They made a decision of all 20 the information deals with equipment inside containment 21 l l which could be exposed to an accident l l 22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: For a plant of this vintage, J 22 l when you talk about qualification of what years standard 24 j roughly is it going to be qualified to? 25 i MR SATTERF' ELD-3-23-74 d-d h 4f

l l escz sc. v. l 3.' ( you go through some of the information you provided in the f I SER, you will find that the testing that was done on some 2 f of this equipment was very severe, very severe and the only 1 l thing as far as a lot of this goes, the only thing we are 4 i 3 not addressing tat would be required is the result of the 6 application of 3-23-74 as aging. 7 One of our concerns with regard to the transmittors 3 that we discuss in the SER was that the testing that was done did not appear to produce the kind of margins to say 9 i we w uld like to have. That is a requirement of 3-23-74. 10 l So, the instance that Dave just mentioned is that g I we want to change out some of them after a couple years, it 1,. } is not that they won't pass -- they won't survive the events that we would expect that might be exposed to it should the I event occur. 15 l It is simply that the margin by which they superv'se 16 l could be better. 17 i It is an application of a part of 2-23-74 and that is is the reason why it was put in that equipment because it 19 is going to be changed out after a couple of years. i I 20 So, we are going to try to tighten the screws. 21 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: So, let's see, when it l l is changed out are you proposing that it would be replaced l I by equipment that was qualified to -- t, 24 i MR. SATTERFIELD: 3-23-74. i' 94 l ~~ COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: 3-23-74.

c ner se. 7 3 l I l MR. SATTERFIr So, we recently published a l I 2 I NUREG presenting interim osition requirement qualification { 3 requiring all app' .nts including TVA to go back and to f reasses their qualifications and that item by item against a 5 the requirements of the positions outlined in the NUREG l 6 and that work under way, would you expect that to be far f and long before escalation of full powers will either have 7 g a good idea of the reconfirmation work for equipment inside 9 the containment. I 10 Any problems, we will know about them. j l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Does that NUREG contain ); l ( substative requirements as well of what it shall need, or 1-s

3 simply an instruction to go back --

is it l l MR. SATTERFIELD: It is more a regulatory guide. 14 It doesn't say thou shall do this, it says, we expect to i I: see the equipment which will see a harsh environment is 16 l l' l tested in that environment, is tested for a period like 17 j 200 days. There are outs, for example, equipment is not la tested for 200 days. 19 I will give you an example, cable. If at all, 20 we find that cable was tested fo'r a month and after that 21 l period of testing the cabeling did not appear to degrade = 1 at all, one could make an argument that if that test had continued for the rest of the 200 days, probably nothing 24 i much else would have happened, because that remaining testing I I

= I J I pact so. e, i 1 1 is usually done in fairly low temperatures and in a steam l l environment, but the degrading influenes are ju'st not there. 2 Those are the kinds of things that I would expect i i 1 4 us to see, those are the kinds of things where I would think l 3 we would probably not require re-testing should those kind l I 6 of things crop up that the applicant will have to provide i I 7 a basis and write down item by item as to why that is okay. 3 MR. ROSS: Okay, there is one other item before 9 we get into unresolved issues. It is with respect to the l containment air lock testing, the Appendix J. There is no !O j i I

1 j

Appendix H, but Appendix J and I should have Mr. Milstead I

7 when he was up here, would you like to hear more on that.

l MR. DENTON: My memory on that one is very easy. g l I The tech specs say test the air lock after re-entrance, we I never required it anywhere and we alway make the tests sea'Is. i g I MR. MILSTEAD: That is part of it, yes, sir. 16 I i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are we going to change ,,u the requirement if we think it is wrong? MR. DENTON: I wrote the standards a year ago l 19 f and I think that is beating its way through the rulemaking i 20 l decisions. ~ 21 I I j MR. MILSTEAD: Can I repeat on this? l There was a notice of a proposed modification to l 22 l j the rule, Appendix J, and it was published in the Federal i 24 1 Register on the lith of January and public comment periods 25 l nd on he 23rd of Jaruarv nd w 4 4 'b

pact sa :- l i l I i i six weeks before that. I i 2 0 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY. Okay. l i I l MR. ROSS: If I can get Mike Heycock up. We have l I 4 i a Appendix C in our supplemental SER entitled, unresolved 3 safety issues and I think it is a very good historical l summary in the SER. The first six pages, I think it is 6 i I i very useful to have that in here. 7 I MR. DENTON: Well, in the interest of time not 3 propose to walk through these except the ones you are interested 9 ~ in but we are following the admonition of the Yellow Creek Board -- 11 i MR. ROSS: Let's go to the unresolved the last slide, the unresolved safety issues. 13 l a l These are the 11 items that are applicable to 14 l supporting, and the bottom line is we believe that there is 13 l l proof that we have addressed, there is 20, and they are 16 j discussed and in many cases they are discussed in the basic I7 i l SER March '79 and in some cases they are discussed again 18 Item four is a five percent hold to this extent 19 j we want to look at the Atlas procedure and review it before 20 l we go beycnd the five percent. - Il j With respect to the timing, I guess is there -- l l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask you about { numberfiveherewhenyousayreactorvesselmaterialtoughnessl ~~ i 'A l it is an unresolved safety issue, why. There is an Appendix j me ~~ G. I

Ul = i pact sc 65 i I i j MR. HEYCOCK: This unresolved safety issue came i l up essentially because you have a situation, you run into l 3 situations like we had in Sequoyah where within a certain 1 4 number of years they are going to be in a situation where I they can't meet the existing regulations. 1 I 6 i And, it applies to probably 20 or so older plants 7 that are operating now. So the thrust of A 11 is to -- ~ 3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Let me stop you there for a minute. In Sequoyah they said it would be roughly 9 to nine years some of those older plants can be operated longer i i 11 i than that and because of that. f MR. COTTRELL: It was 9.2 effective full power j; l years the capacity of reactors in effect is considerably

3 longer.

y MR. HEYCOCK: Then, we of course monitor all i

3 h

of the older vessels and we know exactly where they stand with regard to meeting those limits. I MR. DENTON: Well, what happens as they pull out I l radiation specimens they actually find the reactor toughness 19 j properties to go back and adjust the temperature of pressure 20 I i relationship in the tech specs to keep the vessel ductel i 21 l l and if imposes operational hardships and that has occurred C i in some cases because of the need to keep the vessel warm 22 I at all tLaes. 4 1 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY-We are pressed for time l 1 i 3e ~ I 4 4-

0 eacr sa e l! l'.I ll 1 i l bi. of how we might dec1 with them before we meet again ll l l' presumably late next week, perhaps on an individual basis I i 2 or, I myself would like to go over it with you or perhaps we will schedule a meeting a long the way. 3 MR. DENTON: It has not changed from the Appendix I 6 l that was in there SER was provided. 7 I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Or maybe just another study 8 of that to resolve things. But I would like to touch base 9 with you on that before we go forward. 10 l Does that prett,r well complete your presentation? I 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Could you give us the bottom l line of your presentation?

7

3 l

MR. DENTON: The bottom line, as I see it, is that I l while we still need to review some of the commitments and

g i

I' the most recent submittals by the applicant will be heard, 33 I g i if the understanding is correct there are no outstanding I l differences between we and the applicant that need to be L. resolved before issuance of a fuel load license. There are still some issues which need to be 19 i I j resolved in my mind before we issue a five percent program 20 i i which would resolve those during the fuel loading process 21 l j and I did want to highlight this one and I am being somewhat i flexible in interpreting the near term OL list and things j l like operator training because my view that what is intended 24 i is adequate for the fuel load license but I would want to 25 l l -e, ,a n a c

I 3 not Nc. c' m i i l i 1 i l COMMISSIONER BRAIFORD: Harold, you said in item I I y five operating training, are there others? l I MR. DENTON: I did not want to exclude others, i I am not -- I guess I do not recall at the moment. 8 f s I I } MR. ROSS: Well, I believe it is just a l l I 6 matter of time. l 7 MR. DENTON: I think procedures, procedures are i I 3 another one, that should all procedures reply for power be 9 reviewed for fuel loading or do I only have to review fuel jo load procedures before fuel loading and five percent power I i for five percent power. So, I think you can read the near i 12 term OL list to say all procedures should be reviewed for l the operation you are about to license. 33 l ja l We are not going to have a test procedures reviewed i l until sometime later on. t 33 t I So, in any event before we would authorize the g O 3 test program so it is that kind of splitting distinction / j l of that list because that list only has fuel load it 18 i did not have a low power test in that category. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: There are others besides 20 I J operator licensees and procedures that come to mind? MR. DENTON: Well, let me ask Denny -- 22 h MR. ROSS: Well, once again it is just a matter 22 i of time, but a couple of items on our list have to do with l 24 additional accident monitoring instrumentation and procedure, i M y 11 d 4

i I e i .acc sa co I i, during the zero power tests, so we will do it before the l ) I l low power tests. 2 i 3 There are a couple items on the auxiliary feedwater 4 system. 3 MR. DENTON.- It is just a question of what bust l the feedwater flow was on, whether it was a vital bust or 6 a non-vital bust that is the detail that I think we could a resolve before 5% power testing but it was unnecesary before fuel load, 9 So, we have tended to take that near term list g g j and break it into those two categories. I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Do I understand that you still have some submissions to examine and by the end of next week you may be able to report to the Commission. That.all of those are in fact in satisfactory I 16 order and the legal documents are prepared and are ready [ to go and that was my thought in suggesting that we have 17 i a meeting at that time and the Commission could then act 18 l on the basis of your being in fact ready to move forward. 19 MR. DENTON: I think that there are two pacing 20 items as I see here. An awful lot of material has been 21 submitted this week by the applicant and we will need to C i l j review that document, and our review of it will take us i m l a while and Monday is a holiday and then we also need ~~ i 24 i to settle on the major license itself -- l i 25 I

I y 3 nacz sc. t I l 1 l l up. I would like to know from the lawyers just when you l l need to know from the Commission what sort of vehicle it i j is you are proposing to employ. l MR. SHAFAR: The timing in preparing the document 3 j will be very small. As I understand the problem that yvu I 6 describe which several general approaches you want to go, i l the language would be essentially the same. 7 8 I think the characterization of the document that 9 is giving perhaps constitutes a possible problem. i 10 To answer your question, very little time. j i 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The language will be the f same. l MR. SHAPAR: Essentially, yes. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: My own preference would be

g 73 for something like an operating stage equivalent to an LWA i

i which what they call a low power test authorization -- g COMMISSICNER KENNEDY: For my own benefit, is this u splitting hairs, does it make any difference? MR. BICKWIT: I think the essential difference 19 l { is whether you are going to have the Commission or the staff 20 i have to sign off on the additional level requirements that be met, ap art from that I do not see any legal difference. i MR. SHAPAR: I do not see any legal difference, j 23 i l l I think the document as the legal obj ective is the. license, 1 24 } it has to be. l $c i I ~~

e

• • cr na 70 l

e I l i I l MR. SHAPAR: You are entitled to characterize it l ^ or give it the kind of a title you want or any other purpcses. 2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Since it would be a permission 4 i to load fuel, carry out zero power tests and then at the i l appropriate lifting of conditions by the Director to operate e I 6 l and do some testing.at ST., I do not see why its title could 7 not reflect that and could be I do not know, low power tests 3 authorization or something like that. I l We understand that under the terms of the statute 9 i 10 it has the force and effect of an operating license with the i 11 l conditions imposed by the zero low power lLeit, but I think i calling it what we intend it to be is not a bad idea and I

3 would go for that option as a matter of fcct.

l

j COMMISSIONER KENNEDY-Just so long as it has no i

73 l genuine effect. It is a matter of calling it what we want it i ji to be and nothing more than that. g l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, in a sense the L. i, l limited work authorization as you might say a partial ,8 construction permit we can call it something different. 19 I I MR. BICKWIT: And that is what it is. 20 l l i l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There is the further 21 question whether the Commission wants to split that decision 22 l l further. I mean there is some sentiment at least, one 23 l Commissioner has expressed some interest in that into a 24 [ j zero test phase. l 25 I

ncz sc. l 1 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Yes, I take it as -- I]' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: A low power test phase. f i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think I am inclined to 3 30 with one authorization which is this is to be listed by I 6 the Director -- i i l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: And Harold can let us 7 ~ 1 know when he is ready to un cork it and we want to be brief, 9 we will be brief. Yes, I would agree exactly with that. 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I agree with that. { l 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Do you have any thoughts s 1: on that, Bill? i

3 l

MR. DIRCKS: No, that sounds fine to me. I

g COMMISSIONER HENDRIE

Good thinking. 7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It is always good to follow g the view normally goes with the maj ority of the Commission.

I i

MR. SHAPAR: It is not really what you want. 4/ I If somebody feels different. 18 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Sounds like a loyalty test 19 here. 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Something should be said

• 1 i

for the decision making process. = t MR. DIRCKS: The box score on the NTOL list that 22 l i j was the -- we talked about earlier whether you knew exactly l 24 i what was in or out of this list in this particular phase and l , c. ,c 4. m

} I y ucz; so. 72 I I I i I l MR. DENTON: They would be spelled out in the l f documents that we prepared and what remains to be satisfied 2 2 before the five percent test program would be authorized 4 so that would come to you as part of this safety evaluation l l l panel. I 6 j COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Will you include full power Ill requirements in there or not? / g MR. DENTON: At the present, we have not tried to 9 stretch the SER to cover full power, it stopped at 5% so i' these remain to be resolved. 10 i l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would suggest tnat you I

)

would proceed on the basis of a single authorization which j one might call low power test authorization and I gather l,a that seems to be what 14 i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: It has a recognizeable 13 I two parts to it. 16 I f j MR. BICKWIT: Can I clarify, and this is indeed 17 l hairsplitting. l 18 l The conditions for the low power would have to 19 be satisfied to the satisfaction of the NRR. 20 l You would then have a* briefing, but it would be 21 the NRR's decision. 3 l l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, that would be my 22 i I i proposal but I was going to suggest leaving open the option i 24 } of breaking that in two phases in case one of those could i l mc i convince. I ~

0 I l e DAGE 9 c, yq 1 l I l 1 i l l MR. SEAPAR: Why don't we consider, either way, i why don't we do them both. Then we wilt be ready to go 3 depending on how the decision comes. MR. DENTON: Yes, the distinction they saw is the 3 distinction between fuel load and 5% is a matter of the I 6 licensee completing certain things we have already defined. t i I 7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The small breaks analysis l l I 8 l and other items. 9 MR. DENTON: It is a much bigger distinction between ja the 5% and the full power and that is one part that the i j i Commission would want to see what additional items from ] 11 { the other plants to be set forth and as well as resolving 12 g the questions such as the ice condensor containment -- MR. BICWIT: But it sounds like the Commission ), wants to be brief after they issue the authorization before g 1 j. you go to low power, that is what I understand, t COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would like to hear about it but la l I am willing for that decision to rest with the

director, Peter?

19 i j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, well, I think you 20 should draft both ways so that John could have a chance to 21 i f try to convince us to his way of thinking if in fact he = i i decides that he adheres to it. 23 l I also would. not want to let pass completely the 24 i proposition that this vas the same as a condition operating 5 I i

f =act s c. .~. i l I 1 i f j would not dispute that for a minute. But, there is sort of I a policy component to that as well, and I think it ought to I 3 j be, well, for my own part, I would want to make it clear that i I do see a difference between issuing a low power test authorization based on the staff's assessment of what risks l 6 are involved, a very low risk of being involved at that, and i i 7 issuing the next Commission operating license which seems 3 to me to entail dealing with the action plan and the NTOL i' 9 conditions and the ACRS reviews to a greater extent than they I 12 l already have. I i 11 My willingness te go along,with the low power l test authorization addressed on what you told us about the

7 i

g laying of the risks and the benefits and legally I agree with Joe's proposition that one could do it either way in

j i

terms of pieces of paper involved, bat I would not want it j, to be seen as this being the policy equivalent to a Commission g li i decision yet to resume operating license. ,,u l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You rean operators in a 18 commercial operation? 19 l l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That is right. 20 f COMMISSIONER GILINSKYi I think that is right. 21 Well, unless someone has something else to offer l on this subj ect ? l 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: When will we be able to 24 i see these draf ts since they have become major issues? l i ,e ~ MR. SHAPAR: This afternoon or Tuesday.

>

• no e ru n p

l amor sc. m i i l 16 end i 1 1 I i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY. Either one would be splendid. i l l MR. SdAPAR: This afternoon at two, then. l l j COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Tuesday. 1 i j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Thank you very much. l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Could we agree on some i 6 date to consider this further as long as we have to consider 1 I it? 8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, we are tentatively 9 scheduling a meeting for Thursday, but that is tentative 10 depending on the progress that 11 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE: Wednesday. l 12 l COMMI/SIONER GILINSKY: Well, we had one Wednesday l but Harold said that that was to 13 l 12 COMMISd:GNER BRADFORD: Well, Thursday I will l 1e be at Sequoyah. l 16 I: COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, we have to work this I out. g I la l 1 think we will take a two-minute break and then we will hear from Mr. Stello. g 'O I

Whereupon the Meeting II l

was recessed for two l l minutes.) 1 22 i l u i

s i

i I

m .,,\\,Jf4r; #. m ..< ' N.. ' i.l l s 8B,.., 4 .... a.., n y se O ^ \\ o. 4 N (. s ). .J .o c .b i ) lV ) s \\ b A* 6- .. ~ ~ li&,'.^'; -%u)a.,D 'i, n / !.?iM.,i xd'U.:.,@i i' ) [.. !!:t }d 'I* W . s;3 n ,h... _ ' W L O e e

SEQUOYN1 CONTPOL ROOM ESIGN EVIEW DIFFICIENCIES TO BE CORECTED PRIOR TO CRITICALITY 0 INADEQUATE CR C0FTtNICATIONS 0 INADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR INADVERTENT SWITWING 8 INCOMPLETE PROCEDUES 0 LACK OF AIM 4 PRIORITY 8 LACK OF DEPARCATION A'DNG UNIT L UNIT 2, AND C0 FIG LNIls e ANNUNCIATOR PANELS 0 LIf1ITATIONS IN STATUS FDNITOR PANEL 0 IFPROPER STENi GENERATOR lEEL E00RDER LABELS LMER TERM CORECTIVE ACTIONS 0 PROEDUES TO BE iPGRADED AND EFORPATTED IN C0tFORf'ANE Willi ACEPTABlE STANDARDS 0 PROCESS COMPlflER CAPABILITIES tilLL BE LPGRAED AND EXPANDED O IMPROVE ElliOD FOR LABELING A D'MARKIfE SYSTEFS O ANNWCIATOR PANEL TO BE [PGRAED

V D 0 PM 1 . o D l h@ ~ D l -} { _c no c,c e o. f . :l ail,,g, g g.,se _l T. F i w 7 ~. g Y~~j~5i--~i p y 1 Io o 2;,x.. s=I lt o >s d' ~ 0/ e_. '.e. a 3 . '\\,_ \\ h s,'s N ,.,i,___ s. .i._ s e, 3,< s i i*TD. A - / .s 4 Ls ^ s d 8 g h

1. CC @ E l0

[ Dl { k s 1 Z A sB,NB l 3, r.' _S G I U-I i r g i e a-c .!g* 3 i 3 .i 1 1 I I s-g o,, g --8 "3 I . u --./ w l.ar a e T h! O i i .y r ~ = k. ,I i ihh 9 i 1 ', 'i I g.s n.- Tie i i ii t i ~ = :s.!, .s : 3- .m n.no L. frat Jm 56 .ts:a y 1 ~e .TrA w )- t 3 -)brm.f,., .e,.c 37-g!d , s.:),!;) I ./,, ( i e i s . 'u. p::.:,... ;: $ l '.I t ~ s l(} _.r-i

!A.I.I!!_!I i_

-__-7 j:. t L N _._ I = m s -u :: L t e .f ab:iil!9 i; t = l g- { - a:- k I i g -t t E -= : la=: .t s <e lil!!illd .,,; I s. e s s. +. +. +. s I C g l ' l!llllli l.1 x be . l664a a i.+ = n s gp,:::::::::: i l ( I t g O<G 6 8:t P i l I p! [i. g,. J_

• l I

t 2{ } C i g,, au i c c e N{ t 4 i3 wga g (3 .c II 5 }:$$1I f3'I Ih C i, -{= - i t ?.C d 33 *N:i y. c= { ._g d' EEL-1 5 1 "1 - f' 13 ii ,e 23 j'

$ I 2*!II!I.I3 *....

2 g-.o)l-7. __. Q ___ e t{I**... 171:t t e t i I n-' c-l J. _ (! 'j,4 { }t...... f l [ Cr ) II41 6 l l i g g g i e 3 12 t t 7 s ge-J'** 4 .e-8 .J 4 i j.i a~ "s. 'i *' *. 9 [-- (I ~f ~ 'q' l t! ,1 j j * * * * *, *. 4,,, { t* I i.l g...... ? s_ j g . i!,5 li.** .}}