ML20059N127
| ML20059N127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1990 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9010100138 | |
| Download: ML20059N127 (85) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:; e m;;. i e.: u - .UN:ITED; STATES OF AMERICA. . 1 NUCLEAR- REGULATORY COMMIS SION j f b f (13l PERIODIC BRIEFING ON THE STATUS OF BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 . t y .i LOCatiODl -ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND .' h&[$l SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 Pag 6Sl 84 PAGES , NEALR.GROSSANDCO.,INC. COURT REPORTERS .AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 4 -- 9010100139'900926 PDR 10CFR
- PT9.7 . . . .
PDC
y j.. ;e. i . J DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript ofLa meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on September 26, 1990, in the Commission's of fice- at one -
?
White Flint North, Rockville, F2ryland. The meeting: was i open to public attendance and observation. This.tran cript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it - may contain inrecuracies. l ( The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103,.it i' not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or i addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize. ' HEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RMo0f l$ LAND AVENUf, N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
,F
~
k. p . ii ; 79 w. UNITED STATES'0F AMERICA-l
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION- :
PERIODIC BRIEFING ON THE STATUS OF BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 i PUBLIC-MEETING Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland
,- Wednesday, September 26, 1990 The Commission met. in open session, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: KENNETH M. CARR, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C. ROGERS, Commissioner JAMES R. CURTISS Commissioner FORREST J. REMICE, Commissioner er r u_ NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenne, N,W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
-- 7,- -
h 'et :3 - i
,7 4, ; l
,. 2
' ~ '
STAFF AND' PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE: SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary-WILLIAM C. PARLER, General Counsel JAMES. TAYLOR, Executive Director for Operations DR. THOMAS MURLEY, Director, NRR o STEWART EBNETER, Region II j h < SUZANNE BLACK,.NRR, TVA l THIERRY ROSS, NRR,- PD32 , I BRUCE WILSON, Region II ! OLIVER D. -KINGSLEY, JR., Senior- Vice President, Nuclear Power, TVA , OSWALD ZERINGUE, Site Director, Browns Ferry LEWIS MYERS, Plant Manager, Browns Ferry s i q
. s: , , 5 1 important operational readiness aspects for Unit 2' 2 fuel load and restart' related to our- operat.ional 3 philosophy,- surveillance program, operator experience 4 and training, and the power ascension test program to P
5 assure a- controlled, safe return to full power' 6 operation. 7 (Slide) Slide 3, please. i 8 As you may recall from my comments in July 9 1989, 'l discussed some of the things we' had 10 accomplished at Browns Ferry since I came aboard and 11 ~how we were.in the process of correcting > problems to: 12 support resumption of Unit 2 operations. For example, 13 we instituted an operations improvement plan, t 14 activated the maintenance improvement -p ogram, 15 established a system engineer ownership of plant 16 ' systems and completed two phases of our operational 17 readiness review, to name -a few -of the more ; t 18 si gni fican t efforts we have undertaken to resolve 19 major issues at Browns Ferry. There were many more
\
20 activities reported to you at that meeting. 21 In the last 14 months, we have had several 22 successes. However, some schedule issues have been i 23 identified which have impacted restart. We told you 24 last July that we had essentially finished our 25 discovery phase and had moved into the implementation ; I + NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 ;
i4 1 . a
;, e, r- -.
6-l- phase of'the work process. However, the system return ; 2 to service program has ident i fied significant y 3 additional work. This extended _the schedule, but at
-4 the same - time has increased our confidence that this 5 program will properly prepare the plant for operation. ,
l6 Last year, resolution of electrical issues 7 was tied to completion of ampacity-related 8- modifications. Since that time, we have addressed 9 cable installation concerns that have been raised at 10 our Watts Bar_ plant. This effort has added i 11 considerably to the work required to restart the 12 plant. Ike will describe the impact of these and 13 other issues in more detail later in our presentation. 14- So, we are not there_ yet, but we are 15 getting there. I see the ever-increasing commitment 16 to learn from our experience and I am convinced we 17 have made significant progress since we last met with. 18 you in July. I 19 I want to shift to s'me o good news which 20 demonstrates to you that our decisions and corrective
'21 actions have allowed us to make this progress. 'With j 22 the reactor defueled,_ there has- been a significant 23 improvement in the work we could accomplish. We have 24 now developed a Unit 2 integrated start-up schedule 25 which includes the remaining work to be done. We now I
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202.) 234-4433
.. v. .. :
7.' - 7
#~ '
l have a'well-defined punch. list.for the site. With.the N
~
> 2 implementation of the system return to service program f
'3 mentioned earlier, we have' developed a systematic ;
4 method'to ensure required system operability. L 5 We have had a significant change in the 6 safety consciousness of the people at Browns Ferry. i
'7 Each time we. solve a problem, we gain more confidence. :)
8 Our objective has been to identify and solve problems 9 consistent with emphasis on our readiness to load fuel 10 and operate Unit 2 in a safe and efficient manner. 11 In the last year we have improved our 12 licensing performance. We're doing a better job 13 involving top management and key i s ', u e s , effectively l 14 and efficiently tracking commitments and assuring 15 regular and frequent ' contacts with NRC management and
- 16. the site residents. But we need to do better. So 1 17 am' continuing to emphasize our regulatory performance 18 as one of our top goals. The staff.has reviewed our, 19 Appendix R program, seismic improvements and the 20 environmental qualification program and have found 21 them to satisfactorily meet regulatory requirements.
22 The work to return systems to service is 23 gaining momentum. We have seen improvement in doing 24 work right the first time without error. We're 25 bringing the entire physical plant condition to an i. u-NEAL H. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
(p g- e. r, - 8-I 1 improved state _of readiness' to permit fuel load and 2 initial heat-up of Unit 2. 3 The common thread that weaves throughout 4 everything we' are doing at the site is having the 5 right people in place. The important thing about_the 6 site organization is that we now have.the right team 7 with proven experience at Browns Ferry. I could : not' 8 have said this when we met with you last. I see a 9 commitment by this organization.to reach the standards 10 we have established in our corporate objectives and I
- 11. see the willingness to learn not only .from our 12 mistakes at Browns Ferry but_ the lessons learned of 13 others.
w-14 (Slide) I would like now to review with 15 you improvements-we have made in the organization and 16 the management over the'last year and a half at Browns 17 Ferry. I'd like now to shift to slid 4. 18 The shaded boxes in the site organization 19 chart are positions where ' we have been able to add 20 experienced people to supplement the exieting staff at 21 Browns Ferry. In addition, the number of direct 22 reports to key site management who have been changed 23 is also shown. You'll notice that with the little 24 numbers there of 3/5, 2-3, what have you. 25 The ability to hire people with good I NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Hhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
,a' ;; _ .;
9
' ' ~
l experience and a proven t rack _. record ' is demonstrated 2 by three of the managers we have' hired since ' July 3 1989: Lew Myers, the plant manager; Bret McKinney, our 4 technical _ support manager; and Max Herre11, our 5 -operations manager. 6 Prior to joining TVA,. Lew had . success ful 7 assignments in the plant management organizations at t 8 the Waterford and Saint Lucie plants where he held SRO f 9 licenses, with a total 21 years nuclear power plant 10 experience. 11 Bret McKinney came ta us from the Wolf-12 Creek where he held management positions, and I might 13 add two of- those in the plant organization and also ' 14 was SRO licensed, with 16 years nuclear power plant 15 experience. l .t 16 Max Herre11 came to us from Rancho Seco 17 plant management where he was SRO certified. He was 1 l 18 also an SRO at Salem and SRO cer ified'at Wolf Creek, 19 where he has a total of 20' years nuclear experience. 20 All of these managers, along with many 21 more hired, successfully held management positions at 22 other plants. 23 When we were here last year, I told you-I 1 24 was going to make several organizational changes. We 25 have been able to reduce the number of direct reports i u. NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
f,: s,
,. t.-
i 10 , 1 to the site director and_ the plant manager by 2 streamlining the organization. As'you may-recall, i
~
3 want ed ' t o. establish a separate . position for a, plant L V 4 operations manager, i.e. a number two man in the. 5 plant. This we have done. [( 6 With the site director position, we' i I 7 combined two direct reporting functions under a single i i 8 manager. The site programs-and site support manager- , t 9 position was put in place to relieve the site director 10 position of the heavy administrative burden it had :. 11- before. 'Not only do we have a better staff as, a ; I 12 result of.these changes, we now have a staff that ~is j 13 capable of operating the plant. 14 This concludes what I have to say. I'd i 15 like now .o turn to Ike.Zeringue and let him talk-more , 16 specifically about the work that remains to be done 17 prior to restart.
- 18 Ike?
19 MR. ZERINGUE: Good afternoon, Mr. 20 Chairman, members of-the Commission. 21 As Oliver said, I'm the site director at 22 Browns Ferry, responsible for restart and operation of 23 Unit 2. 24 (Slide) Slide 5, please.
-25 Today I'd like to discuss the schedule-i NEAI, R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
y_ -,
, .; e_
9
, 11 ' ~
o 1 related problems we've had at Browns Ferry, what we've. 2 done to'fix the problems, and the results. 3 The discussion will be in three parts. 4-- I' ll' discuss schedule = issues , the curre..i .tatus and-5 the Unit'2 return to service schedule.
-6 (Slide) Slide 6, please.
7 Four schedule issues impacted our restart The . first was- . development of work estimates 8 date. - 9 based 'on conceptual design rather than the actual-10 design itself. I'll use a cable issue to try to. 11 explain the point. 12- When we laid out our restart schedule,u we 7, 13 assumed a 'certain percentage of the cable would be 14 installed'in conduit'. We assumed a certain-percentage 15 would be installed in tray. With the conceptual 16- design, we knew the end devices that were impacted and 17 we knew the termination points, but we really didn't 18 know the field routing of the cable, so we had to make 19- estimates based on what knowledge we had at that time. 20 As it turned out, the peraentages that we had-assumed 21 were incorrect. Much more tray- was run in conduit 22 than in cable trays themselves, which will result in 23 us having to install the conduit, conduit hangers and 24 pull the cable through. So, it significantly added to 25 the work effort.
-i u_
NEAL R. GROSS . 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 234-4433
t 1 ,- , i 12 1 The next issue was emergent work. The 2 SpAE/Sp00 process, which is our . syst em return to 3 service process, resulted in our identifying 4 additional work on a system basis. I'll discuss that 5 in further detail a little bit later. G Cable issues had an impact. When we were 7 here in July, an issue was raised with regard to the 8 cable problems, the pull-by problems at Watts Bar. As 9 a result of that, we tested approximately 600 10 conductors at Browns Ferry. This did indeed icpact 11 our work activities. It pulled a lot of electricians 12 off existing work as we went into the testing pha.e. . 13 We had to walk down the conduits, we had to signal 14 trace the cables, determinate, high pot, reterminate 15 and perform functional testing to verify 10 reinstallation. 17 The other cable issue we had dealt with 18 qualification of cables. We had what we refer to as e: 19 our black snake problem. We had a number, 20 approximately 200 or so cables installed in a plant 21 with no Jacket markings. Since there weren't any 22 Jacket markings, we weren' t abic to verify the qualifi-23 cation in that cable. We didn't know where it came 24 from. We had to replace it. Some we were able to 25 qualify by taking samples of the jacket material, i NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 734-4433 m _ . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . .
~ , 5- II[' '
{ je- , ;
=..
s c
}-- 13-
' ~ '
1- running' tests and verifying the qualification of,that 2- material. The large, large majority, however, was :i i t
- 3 replaced. l y
4 The'next issue dealt. with- our assumptions 5 with' regard to the percentage of required rework. In 6 the 790214 area, we made an assumption with regard to - t . -7 how many hangers would have to- be reworked or F 8- replaced. We did sampling analysis prior to laying i L 9 out'the schedule. We ran a number of stress problems- ; I ; 10 to.see what the results would be. Then based on that - 11 failure rate, we laid out the. schedule. Those sample -! 12 analyses showed that we would have approximately. _40 .
,i .
L"~ 13 percent failure rate. When we were done with.all the o 14 stress ' analyses, the actual failure rate was 15 approximately 75 percent.- So, that effectively- 4 16 doubled our work effort in the hanger regime. ,
- 17. (Slide) Slide 7, please.
J 18 Now I'd like to back'up and talk about our 19 system return to service process. It's really done in 20 two parts and 'I'll talk about the system plant 21 acceptance evaluation part first. 6' 22 It's really a syste ,atic method to assure Wl 23 that the design basis has been established and > 24 configuration verified. We list on the slide the 25 number of at t -ibutes , drawing discrepancies, ECN
- i. _
- t NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 , (202) 234-4433
7 Im
'i
- p. .
.e
.t.
I4 '.
~
n closure, ' essential calculation verification, 1- closure 2' of quality issues, critical drawing restoration, 3> 3 program, special program closures. This process, in
'4 effect, is the method by 'which the project engineer o
t S certifies to the facility that the system from a i L. 6 design perspective is ready to support operation. [ 7 (Slide) The second phase of that we call 8 our system preoperability checklist. Sp00 4s -a 9 systematic method to ensure that. the maintenance 10 testing is ~ complete and configuration control is 11- establishtd. It's the plant's way of ensuring that the 12 system is indeed ready to support operation. Again,. 13 we list on the slide a number of the attributes of'the 14 process, the testing, the maintenance, the licensing.. j 15 procedures, system configuration and walkdowns. We do
'16 detailed walkdowns of each system as part of this .
l 17 process, utilizing -people from Operations, 18 Maintenance. Tech Support and the NRC residents 19 participate in this process. ' 20 This is really the keystone to our system ' 21 return to service process. Our recovery of this 22 facility is very detailed. . 23 The process works. As we've gone through : 24 the process, we've identified a number of items that 25 we had to fix, both from a design perspective and from i a NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 i (202) 234-4433
e, o cs + 3 pr , l
- 1. ,
r.. . 15 .,
~-
1- 'a field perspective- through the walkdown process. f 2 That has added a' fair amount of work to the schedule, a :3 (Slide) Now, moving again to the larger 4 issues, with regard to productivity -- we're back on 5' slide 6.-- With regard to-productivity, we made certain , 6 assumptions when we laid out the schedule. We. assumed 7 that we'd be working at rates consistent with normal i 8 industry averages, unit rates for hanger ~ installation, 9 for cable pulls, those kinds of things. It took.us a 10 protracted period of time to achieve those unit rates..
^ , 11- Since we were slow.in achieving those unit rates-, our 12 schedule moved out. .;
r~ 13 Now, we've increased the productivity from
., ?
14' 30 to 50' percent . That's really a pretty dramatic 4 15 . increase for us. We got there, but it took- us an 16- extended period of time to do that and that did in ,
, 17 fact impact our schedule. +
18 CHAIRMAN CARR: That's 30 to 50 percent of 19 what? 20 MR. ZERINGUE: Related work. It's an , 21 industrial engineering measure of work activities
- 22. within the field.
23 MR. KINGSLEY: We measure work in two 24 fashions. We measure direct work, which is tied with 25 a craft being out and, say, installing a hanger i w_ l l NEAL R. GROSS
<> 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 g (202) 234-4433 [
r , t .. .
.C- 04 3 16 1 itself. Then we measure total related work which- >
~2 could be a . job briefing, could be that individual 3 ; waiting for a QC'to come do an-inspection. It could 4 be suiting out or going in the radiation controlled v
5 area, that type thing. What Ike is talking.about is G the total related work was only 30 percent. It's now: 7 up to.50. The direct work in some cases was down in 8 the< order of nine to ten percent when we started doing 9 this. That is up almost double since then. 10 CHAIRMAN CARR: Now, that's hours involved 11 in the total job? 12 MR. KINGSLEY: Yes, right. 13 Okay.
=
CHAIRMAN CARR: u_ 14 MR. ZERINGUE: The fourth schedule issue'had 15 to do with the manner in which we actually scheduled. 16 I'll use the term " scheduled for success." Again, 17 I'll use an example -- a cable pull as an example ~. 18 We had to replace the cable to the.RHR 19 pump. It's a very, very long run of cable. It was
.I 20 installed in four inch conduit. We elected to use the l 21 existing conduit and attempt to pull the new cable 22 through the existing conduit. We had concerns with 23 this, the concern being the pull tension required. We J
24 thought there would be a possibility, a strong 25 possibility that we may exceed the pull tension. i NEAL R. GROSS ; 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
, : r-
)
a
, .i 1
r-- ' 17 i
'~
l'
'However, we elected to t ry' t o run it through the l
2 conduit. Our estimates on using the_ existing hardware i j 3 show that the activity would be completed in about G,000 l 4 ' manhours. Replacement, we estimate, is somewhere in 5 the vicinity of 50,000 manhours. G' As we pulled the, cable, we did, in fact, l
'7 exceed the pull tension. So, we'had to' pull back the l 8 cable,' remove the ol'd conduit,-install new conduit and 9 then repull. The actual duration of the. activity was a t
10 in excess of 60,000 manhours. Those kinds of success j
.1' 11 assumptions did, in fact, impact what we were doing.
12 COMMISSIONER REMICK: That was for pulling ! 13 cable to the RHR?' l i l 14 MR. ZERINGUE: Yes, sir. - > 15 COMMISSIONER,REMICK: Thirty man yearsn of f 16' effort? 17 MR. KINGSLEY: No. Explain it, Ike. 18 MR. ZERINGUE: It's a - very,- very long
- 19. cable run down to the RHR pumps. The entire effort-- -
20 this includes the design effort to route seismically 21 qualified- conduit, design seismic hangers for -the 22 conduit and then install that and pull the cable. b 23 (Slide) I'd like- to discuss now .the; '
.24 current status with regard to the issues we just went 25 over. :
i w. NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. + Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
.- .- +
- n. ,
p .e- . , f .
- i. ,
i' 18
, r ~
l 1 We talked about utilization of conceptual-g 2 design'for estimates early.on. That's-'behind us now. 3 The design is well over 99 percent complete and well , 4 over 95 percent of the work plans for field , i S installation are complete. We now know the G commoditier. that we have to deal with. Those have !
,t 7 been factored into our schedule so we'd know-what we '
t 8 have to do.- So, the first issue of conceptual'versus I 9 actual is behind us.
- t p 10 With regard to emergent work, the ~ cable 11 issues that we discussed, that's behind us. The-12 failure rates, we know what they are now. -There 13 aren't any_ ' assumptions based on that. In fact, a 14 great majority of'the honger work that had the major-
'15 impact is done. And the continuing source'of emergent ,
16 work from our SPAE/SPOC process has, in f act , been l 17' factored into our sche'dule. So, in essence, with 18 regard- to emergent work, two major issues, actual l 19 versus conceptual, is done. The breakage rates are 20 known and we factored in the results of our SPAE/SP00 21 process. I 22 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Just a question. ! 123 Using the RHR as just an example, when you replaced- ' 24 the old cable, did you find that it was damaged or did , 26 you know that it was damaged in advance or were you
- r. +
NEAI, R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
c .. . ! i i F' 19 i
' - )
i 1 uncertain? 2 MR. KINGSLEY: It was replaced for . 3 ampacity reasons. It was not replaced for damage. 4 COMMISSIONER REMICK: For capacity? i 6 MR. KINGSLEY: Right. Ampacity. i t j 6 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I see. Okay. ; 7 Did you find when you replaced cables like 8 this that they were damaged from too much pulling ! 9 tension when they were installed? Did you find much '
+ 10 of that? , 11 MR. ZERINGUE: No, sir. When 'we did our .
12 high-pot testing to evaluate the ' pull-by' damage, we
'~~-
13 identified no pull-by damage associated. with our- t
, . 14 insulation practices. We did note, however, ~a 15 manufacturing defect in one of the cables. We sent !
16 that to the University of Connecticut for analysis. ! 17 We had a cable with a puncture in it.. We did identify 18 that. We found cable that was damaged because of a, '
.19 missing bushing'on junction box. As a result of that, 20 we inspected some 330 or 331-junction boxes to.try to 21 identify any further damage to isolate this issue.
.i 22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: What kind of margin !
s 23 do you have now of ampacity now that you've replaced 24 this cable? 25 MR. ZERINGUE: Jim Hudson, our chief u . L NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20005 l (202) 234-4433 ,
. , .. - . . - . J
g tg. ;,) , cx . h r l
;.. r- , 20 I- . engineer, is here. 4 2 MR. KINGSLEY: Jim, do you want to answer- ,
3 that? 4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Would you go from 27' E 5 MR. KINGSLEY: Stand up.- here- at the 6 microphone. ; 5 I [ 7 MR. HUDSON: I'm Jim Hudson, Chief l 8 Electrical Engineer. i
- j. 9 In the ampacity evaluation,- it ,was
- 10. primarily focusing on the as i nstalled configuration.- .
I 11 With regard to allowable margin we have remaining, it 12 looked at the operating loads and the margin we.have 13 remaining is very small in the trays for future ! 14 additions. So, we're looking at them very closely as 15 we do modifications of those trays. i 1G COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Okay. 17 MR. KINGSLEY: What about with the, say,
-18 repulling the cable to the RHR. I think that's what l 19 Commissioner Rogers really asked you.
20 MR. HUDSON: With regard to the RilR cable? , l- 21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes. What was your
- 22 margin before you decided to add ampacity and what is ,
23 it now that you've pulled new cable? , 24 MR. HUDSON: Well, this cable went back l + L 25 l into a conduit configuration. So we establish 3 ln _ 1 NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
/
. 1, y .
., 21
~'
I approximately 25 to 35 percent margin over the 2 operating current of t he ~ load. The failure itself, 3 I'm not sure what the actual' results showed on the 4 cable prior to its replacement. But we now have 25 to 5 35 percent margin on the operat ing current of the 6 load.
-i 7 MR. ZERINGUE: Okay. We initiated some 8 productivity enhancements. I'll step through some of 9 the things that we have done.
10 We placed additional field supervision in il the field with a modifications area. We added the 12 number of field engineers in .the field to better
"-~
13 support the craft, trying to get a ratio of one field
,i 14 engineer per crew to help resolve any issues the craft 15- may have with regard to installation. We added 16 additiono.. planning support for the superintendents.
17 We streamlined a number of the processes and 18 procedures and we've. introduced milestone coordinators 19 to coordinate those activities necessary to lead us to 20 and to complete a particular milestone, like-21 integrated leak rate testing, hydro dry well closure, 22 those kinds of things. 23 The next few slides show you some of the 24 results of our productivity enhancements. 25~ (Slide) You can see in the hanger area, i
- i. .
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
9 . C =r 22 [ I ~ slide 10, before July of last yeer when we spoke with 2 you,- we'd only installed 148 ' hangers. Since then i-3 we've ~ installed almost 2,000. We have 266' remaining. l
- 4. (Slide) The next slide shows our progress' 5 in the cable installation area. Again, you .can see ,
6 the upward' trends with regard to work activities 7 completed. - 8 N o w ,- this is all well and good, but I 9 think what is most important as we. accomplished these - 10 increasing trends in productivity for these hardware -I i 11 items, we've reduced the re,)ection rate by a factor of' ;
'12 four. We're very proud of that.
13- CHAIRMAN CARR: But the units on that .-
. 1 14 cable is what, thousands of feet or -- !
15 MR. ZERINGUE: Feet. t 16 CHAIRMAN CARR: Feet. 17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Thousands of feet. 18- MR. ZERINGUE': The units-are feet. -t
- 19. (Slide) The ECN/DCN closure, again you .
20 can see-the increase. - 21 (Slide) Now, the next slide shows s' 22 reduction in our maintenance work order backlog. We I 23 had approximately 7,500 maintenance items backlogged
-r 24 in July. We've reduced that number now down to 25 approximately 2,500. Of those, 500 are awaiting NEAL R. GROSS t 133" Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
$ shington, D.C. 20005 '
(202) 234-4433
l o .. , Lj ..:
,, 2 31 l I tests. The work-is complete. Now, this is a strong 1 2 reduction from our perspective in that as we go (
3 through the walkdown processes in our SPAE/SPOC ; 4 process, we identify quite a number;of items. Yet-as j 5 we're bringing- in a lot of additional- work, we'.re - 6 still bringing the maintenance backlog down. We're ': i
.7 very proud of that. Our goal at restart is to have -l 8 this number-below 600. When I say below 600, those !
?
9 are what we refer to'as true backlog items. 10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Now, this slide ends 11 the beginning of August. ; 12 MR. ZERINGUE: I believe that's the end of , ; 13- August. j
'.~~ .t 114 COMMISSIONER ' ROGERS: End of August i 15 rather. Excuse me. Where is it now? Where are you- 7 i
16 today? [ 17 MR. ZERINGUE: We're about'130, Lew, below ; 18 that now? i MR. MYERS: Backlog?-
~19 20 MR. ZERINGUE: Yes.
21 MR. MYERS: We're at about 1940 left. 22 MR. ZERINGUE: That's right. We have to l t 1. 23 add to that 1940 the 500 or so that are awaiting post-p' 24 modification testing.
- l 25 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, is that 500 in u'-
( j NEAL R. GROSS , 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. l; Washington, D.C. 20005 ; l-- (202) 234-4433 .. 12 % , . _ - - ~ _ . - . . . . t
k-l q- 24 i
~~
1 these numbers? 2 MR. ZERINGUE: Yes, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER-ROGERS: Well,-what.does that ,
-f 4 mean, that you've got 2,300 then total? Is that~what [
1 y 5 .you're saying? 6 ~MR. MYERS: We have 1940 work items to l
.i 7 complete. We have some P&T testing that prevents us a
8 from closing out-our testing, prevents us from closing 9 out the activity. So, if you look at actual work, R
\
10 there's about 1940 work orders to work yet. ' 11- CHAIRMAN CARR:- Does that include j 12 preventive maintenance as well or is this all
- ' 13 corrective?- i 14 MR. ZERINGUE: This- is all correc'tive-
- 15 maintenance. ,
16 CHAIRMAN CARR: Okay. , 17 MR. ZERINGUE: Our preventive maintenance 4 18 backlog has shown more drastic reductions thun.this, t 19 CHAIRMAN CARR: Okay. 20 MR. ZERINGUE: -(Slide) With regard ~ to
-i 21 current schedule statun, I'd;'like to go over the.
4 22' contingency measures, the margin we factored into the ! 23 schedule. We've added 50 percent when we assumed' l 24 duration of the work in a large bore hanger ' area. 25 Small bore, we're almost done. We have some 20 or so g, L NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Wash'ington,'D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
l .'. j 25
' ~
l left. 2 in the electrical area, we've added 30 3 percent to the cable and conduit work. We've 4 increased the assumed duration by 30 percent. We've 5 only assumed an 80 percent utilization of craft. That G. gives us 20 percent in reserve to support the 7 schedule. They'll actually be there working, but. 8 we've assumed that there were only 80 working when we 9 laid out the schedule. 10 CHAIRMAN CARR: Eighty percent of the 11 available craft? 12 MR. ZERINGUE: Yes, sir. 13 CHAIRMAN CARR: Okay. 14 MR. ZERINGUE: We assume 12 days lost 15 production due to the holidays. We know for a fact 16 that during the holiday season we're not as productive 17 as we need to be. We've included 12 days of lost time 18 to accommodate that. We've added 30 days of 19 contingency. As we go through the process, we'll be 20 identifying additional items. So, we've added simply 21 30 days. 22 CHAIRMAN CARR: Now, all those additions-23 are to what I would call an optimistic schedule? I 2? mean you say you added 50 percent duration or 30 25 percent duration or 12 days to this? You took the I u_ NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avent.e, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
q l; o e,- ., ; Q:n h , t 26- I 1 schedule that was an all success schedule and added l
. . . 1 2 these on top?- j 3 MR. ZERINGUE: We added -- yes. Let me !
4 try to explain the duration increases. We've added 50 ; 5 percent :to the unit rates we have been able to 6 achieve. So this is truly a margin add. 7 CHAIRMAN CARR: All right. . 8 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Now,. my . question. 9- When.dic you -- you added-it to what, to your estimate ' 10 of. September 1 or July 17 -, 11: MR. ZERINGUE: We have in our project 12 -schedule all of the work activities discreetly . 13 . identified and logically tied. To those in.a hanger
~
14 area, an electrical area, we simply increase the time 15 span by 50 percent and by,30 percent for each of those i 16- discreet items in our project 2 schedule. It's a . 17 computerized schedule. .j 18 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. But at some 19 point in time, you had a schedule and then you revised 20 it, is that right, with these changes, these 21 assumptions or addition of days and so forth?
'22 MR. ZERINGUE: That's correct.
123 COMMISSIONER REMICK: When did you do 24 that? Is that -- 25 MR. ZERINGUE: We did that --
-A ;
- ?
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 ,
m ' .) P:
- j g "o-
.. i
- ;; ?. . ,
l-p, 27 h'~ l COMMISSIONER REMICK: Is-that a recent -- L 2 MR. ZERINGUE: Yes. l'
! 3 CHAIRMAN CARR: Yesterday.-
-4 MR. ZERINGUE: No, sir. We did that last' 5 week. That was close. >
6 COMMISSIONER REMICK: 'Okay. All right. . 7 So, it's a recent estimate. 8 MR. ZERINGUE: Yes. , 9 MR. KINGSLEY: I brought an independent i 10 team in to take an in-depth look at the schedule and 11- this is a result of some of the looking at that.. 12.- ' COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay.
'~"
- 13 CHAIRMAN CARR: Now, I'm getting ahead of 14 you, but does this amount of time account for the ;
15 bracket in the next slide? t 16- MR. ZERINGUE: Yes. Okay. 17 CHAIRMAN CARR: That's what ths 18 margin is between those two dates then? , 19 MR. 7ERINGUE: No, sir. The margin -- + 20 CHAIRMAN CARR: The margin's in the first , 21 date? , i 22 MR. ZERINGUE: That's correct. 23~ CHAIRMAN CARR: -Okay. 24- MR. ZERINGUE: (Slide) So, we'll to to 25 the next slide, slide 15. c ._ , a i NEAL R. GROSS ' 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. - Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
h.i C .. j , , er
,r--- 28 I Those assumptions that we 'just discussed 2 result in,a fuel load window between January 25th and 3- February 14th and a criticality window between March 4 21st and April.10th. , S COMMISSIONER ROGERS:- Okay. Just' to be G clear on that , that. January 25th. date then includes 7 .these margins that you've just stated?-
8 MR. ZERINGUE: Yes, sir. 9 CHAIRMAN CARR: And so the next 19 days'is 10 additional in the window? , 11 MR. ZERINGUE: Yes, sir. 12 CHAIRMAN CARR: Okay. 13 MR. ZERINGUE: We've looked at the 14 schedule very hard and, as I said, we've made a number 15 of ' assumptions. We think this is a very achievable 16 schedule. 17 Now, I~ also want to make clear that we 18- will not be driven by schedule. We will take whatever q
-19
. time is necessary to ensure that the quality of the- R 20 work meets the standards we've set.
21 CHAIRMAN CARR: Okay. 22 MR. ZERINGUE: (Slide) The last issue I'd j 23 like to talk about is the TMI action items. There 24 were 109 items applicable to Unit 2. One hundred and R 25 five have been completed. Two remain to be completed .j
- t. r 1 t
g. NEAL R. GROSS
- . 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
L Washington, D.C. 20005 l i: 1 ; i: (202) 234-4433
n { I -.q' (44 i r---- 29 l
'~
l before restart. Those are noble gas and : 2 iodine / particulate monitors, and the post-accident
'- 3 sampling system. '
4 The remaining two items are partially 5 complete, the safety parameter display system and our 6 detailed control room design review. .; 7 COMMISSIONER REMICK: The review or the 8 modifications as a result of the review? 9 MR. ZERINGUE: The review is complete. ' 10 We've partially implemented the modifications. . 11 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Why has that taken 8 12 so long since you've been shut down?
"~
13 MR. KINGSLEY: Let me answer that, i 14 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Sure. 15 MR. KINGSLEY: for a long perico of time, 16 there had been a plan that Browns Ferry would restart 17 in a very short period of time. It did complete the 18 detailed control room design review. When I came 19 aboard, we were in the process of dealing with staff y
-20 about running a number of the significant human 21 engineering deficiencies, commonly called HEDS, 22 through our restart criteria. We did that. After I 23 sat down and around Christmas time of this last year-24 when it became obvious to me that our schedult for i
25 success was not working, we went back and added a i s_ l NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. , l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
m 1 ' 1
~
';$ g .g.
(] **i i [l : ' ;--- 30
=
. 9 . l
[ 1 number of items. We added the SPDS, which we had-I 2 never planned.on. We started working on that about a i L 3 year earlier than that.- I got.a team in place to do !. 4 that. I
'S' So, the answer is that we'd never planned .:
g: G to do some of this' work. So, we really bellied up and ' [ 7 added about six or eight of the TMI action items, ! 8 including these partials, at that time. That's why L 9 we're where we are today. .. 10' CHAIRMAN CARR: You scheduled ~ i t~ so , L-11 optimistically that you couldn't get your work done?- i 6 12 'MR. KINGSLEY: Yes, sir. ; I' 13 CHAIRMAN CARR: Okay. l w. 14 MR. KINGSLEY: That's exactly right. A 15 COMMISSIONER REMICK: You indicated the i 1G SPDS you had never planned to do? 17 MR. KINGSLEY: Not until I came to TVA. I 18 got a special team of people that had worked for me at-19 Grand Gulf, Rick Rogers, who used to work for NRC.
)
20 He'd helped me put that in over there. He came wit'h 21 me about six months after that and we started a 22 special team to put that in. We bought the computer 23 from SAIC and we've made a lot of progress in that. 24 In fact, we have a lot of hookups that are already in
;25: place. It will be the final system. It just doesn't i
NEAL R. GROSS 1323.Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 .
y :g _ ., , I- { 4 4.
, 31
~
L 1 -have quite'all the redundancy that a fully qualified
!. 2 safety parameter' display system will have.
[. 3 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I was' under the p , 4 impression -- 5 CHAIRMAN CARR: I think that they had.not 6' planned to put it in before start-up. 7 MR. KINGSLEY: Oh. That's right. Oh, I'm p 8 sorry. I'm' misleading you. I apologize. 9 CHAIRMAN CARR: It -just never- fit the
~
L 10 timing until they admitted- they couldn't get where 11 they were going. 12 MR. KINGSLEY: That mistake first
"~
- 13. refueling _ outage, which would be sometime down the-t 14 road.
15- COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. 16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:- If I could just ; go 17 back for a second. Before you re vi s ed your schedule-u- 18 to take in to account contingencies and other 19 margins, when would you have been planning fuel load?-
- 20 MR. ZERINGUE: October 13th.
^21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:- October 13th 'was 22 your earlier date?
23 MR. ZERINGUE: Yes, sir. 24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: So you've moved-that
.25 back to January 25th?
,u- l l L ! I I NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 L lg (202).234-4433
4 - . ,f ++ i 32
~
- 1 MR. ZERINGUE: Yes, sir.
2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Okay. 3 MR. ZERINGUE: Lew Myers, our plant 4- manager, will discuss operational readiness. 5 MR. MYERS: Good afternoon. I'm Lew 6 Myers, plant manager. 7 (Slide) I'd like to discuss the operating 8 philosophy of Browns Ferry. I would also like to 9 include some of the standards that we use to convey 10 this philosophy throughout our organization. 11 First philosophy. he believe that our 12 operating philosophy is rooted in both accountability
'13 and professionalism. To generate this philosophy, we m . --
14 mu s t have a quality plant, a quality staff and a
'15 quality working environment.- We want to develop an 16 attitude that when a problem surfaces, a member of the 17 site management team jumps up and says, "I've got the 18 problem and I'm going to solve it."
19 We also want our employees to have both a 20 positive and a professional attitude. When a problem 21 arises, I expect the employee to stand up and identify 22 the problem to his supervision without fear of 2,1 reprisal. Our employees know that they can take the 24 time to do things right. If a task they are 25 performing is unclear, we want them to stop and get r-~~ NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
, 4 , 33 ' ~
I their questions resolved prior to continuing. 2 (Slide) Next slide. 3 When we investigate . personnel areas, we 4 use the INp0 Human performance Enhancement System. We 5 want to make sure that we know why a person made an G error. As you can see from this chart, we have 7 reduced the number of errors in our plant 8 organization. 9 Another top priority at Browns Ferry in 10 material condition and housekeeping. A good material 11 condition and housekeeping is essential for a quality ! 12 plant. I have demanded a high level of management-13 involvement and frequent inspections throughout the 1 14 plant. We are presently developing a new program that 15 divider the plant into 32 areas. Each area will be 16 posted with a person's name. That person will have 17 the responsibility of ensuring that problems are both ' 18 identified and resolved in his area. 19 Next, standards, things that we have done 20 to ensure this philosophy has been implemented. 21 During the past year, we have hired s oir e additional 22 quality managers to supplement our management team. 23 please note that I use the word " supplement." Our 24 managers have proven track records and I am very 25 satisfied with their performance to date. We hold our .i i_ NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
o i (i', _ ., 7 [ , .. , c. n . i 34 1 managers accountable. We put them in charge and 2 emphasize accountability to them. In turn, this is 3 emphasized throughout their organization. , 4 Additionally, each manager establishes performance 5 standards for their respective areas. , 6 ror example, we have recently revisedbur 7 operator code of conduct. All operators and managers, 8 including Mr. Kingsley, have signed this document. , 9 This standard identifies what we believe to be the 10 philosophy necessary to be a professional operator. 11 (Slide) Next slide, please. 12 To assure these standards are implemented, 13 we monitor for results. We do this.with our quality w-14 assurance organization, our independent safety 15 engineering group and finally our managers in the 16 field. Additionally, key performance items are 17 monitored and trended by each department. These items 18 are used to prepare a monthly report that ensures that 19- we meet expected standards. 20 We have made good progress. We are 'not 21 defensive, but are proactive and self-critical. We 22 have lowered a threshold for the incident 23 investigations and we determine root causes. We want 24 our people to get to the bottom of problems and near 25 misses. Having an incident investigation threshold I NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
p e- ,_ ( ; .ce
, 35
'~
1 that deals with near misses will help prevent problems 2 from ever occurring. When a problem does occur, we 3 get the people involved in the problem to help 4 determine both the root cause and the need corrective 5 actions. G We have a positive disciplinary. policy 7 that I thoroughly support. However, I have 'little 8 tolerance for personnel errors as a result of 9 inattention to detail or carelessness. We are not 10 going to tolerate people that do not perform to high 11 standards. I have had to take some strong personnel 12 actions. r~ 13 l'm encouraged. While not yet a 14 consistent high performer, we are prepared to restart 15 Browns Ferry. I will continue to strdve to have my 1G organization become a' high performer. It's a matter 17 of both~ personal and professional pride. 18 (Slide) Next I'd like to discuss our 19 surveillance program. As your . staff reported in 20 Inspection Report 89-43, and in our-most recent SALP L 21 report, the surveillance program has been a problem at 22 Browns Ferry. In general, our surveillance program 23 just evolved over the plant life. Based on that 24 inspection, we decided that strong management 25 attention was needed. We formed several management I u-NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 L- - (202) 234-4433
wrv ;, . [ c. f e 4 h T- - 36 I review teams to identify'the problem. 2 We found that' we' had problems in three l 3 principal areas, technical content, programmati~c
.4 issues and procedure implementation. In order to-5 . solve these problems, we had .t o address each ares ;
6 specifically. 1 i 7 First, technical content. In order to 8 strengthen the technical content of our procedures, we 9 improved the verification process. We now require 10 s t rong engineering involvement in the preparation of all
'll surveillance procedures. To date, we have. revised '
12 over 750 surveillance procedures. Additionally, we ; 13 strengthened our validation process to ensure that the' ' w-14 responsible writer or engineer monitors the procedure 15 during the first implementation. After this person. t 16 monitors the performance, I he or she then makes .the 17 needed corrections. 18 We have - reviewed all of'our surveilla~nce q 19 procedures to ensure that proper compensatory measures 20 are being taken and the required technical 21 specification-frequencies are not exceeded. 22 Quality assurance has also performed a-100 23 percent audit of rewritten procedures to verify 24 compliance with technicai speci tions. 25 Next we address the programmatic issues. a NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 4 . _ _
7 p 9 .c
-. e ] 1 We prepared administrative procedures that documented 2 the frequency of all surveillance testing and the 3 standards to be used when perforn.ing a test. We have 4 trained our people on these standards.
n 5 We put into place a computerized 6 surveillance scheduling and t r a t.P i n g program that 7 ensures .surveillances are conducted within the 8 required intervals. 9 Finally, implementation. We have to mexe 10 sure'that our people use procedures properly. We have 11 defined our expectations. We tell the person 12 performing the procedure that he or she is the owner. 13 We want them to take the time to do things right and
,"~
l 14 to stop if they find a problem with a procedure. We 15 tell the writer of the procedure that he.or she _is 16 responsible for the quality of the procedure. They 17 are responsible for reviewing all documents necessary 18 to prepare or_ revise a procedure. When a plant , 1 19 problem that is procedure related is found, we hold _; 1 20 the writer and the reviewer accountable. 21 As a standard of professionalism, we have , 22 to make our employees sensitive to procedure , 23 adherence. My staff and I continually reinforce this , 24 standard at staff meetings and at meetings with the 25 union representatives.
.l u
I NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 ;
f7 . , ,
]
f,j . ..; i' g
?
-, 38 ;
.i
~1 I am confident that the' program will l 2 support' the restart erfort. What remains now is to
'3 m o n i t o r .- the implementation. I will not ask for 4 permission to start up without a quality surveillance 5 program.
- v, ,
G (Slide) Next I want to address the < , 7 readiness of our plant staff. Specifically I will 8 talk about the licensed operators and their readiness 9 to safely operate Browns Ferry. 'The organization, the 10 experience level, our training program and' finally the- f i 11: professionalism of our operating staff are all j 12 essential considerations in my confidence to restart , 13 Unit 2.
" 14 First, the organization. .Our operations 15 department has 26 senior -reactor operators and 42 l
16 reactor operators assigned to a-six shift rotation. I : 17 feel that we are. adequately staffed to meet all-18 contingencies. Our licensed personnel average over , 19 seven years of nuclear plant operating experienc'e. 20 This excludes the five operators licensed earlier-this 21 year. We have to ensure that this experience level is
, 22 balanced on each shift.
23 Since we have been shut down for five 24 years, we have taken actions to supplement the . 25 existing 9xperience levels. I want to make sure that I NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 ; (*02) 2 234-4433 !
.1
,. .e.
e i 39 ,
' ~
l each of these operators are familiar with the actual 2 plant operating conditio . All of our -shift 3 operation supervisors have participated as an INFO 4 peer evaluator at operating facilities. Our shift 5 supervisors, assistant shift supervisors, and unit i G operators will complete one week of hot license 7 experience at Monticello prior to restart. 8 Our operators have been trained on a 9 simulator for each of the planned power ascension 10 tests. Additionally, during power ascension, training 11 time is scheduled for each operator to perform 12 critical manipulations. For example, I have scheduled 13 time for each operator to have hands-on control rod 1 14 manipulations during low power physics testing. L 15 Finally, c.tr non-licensed operators. All d I 10 of o u r_ non-licensed operators have been sent to ' 17 Sequoyah for one week of training. I want them to l i 18 have recent experience in rad waste processing, i 1 19 systems using live steam and plant control systems. 1 20- (Slide) Next, our operator training 21 program. In 1985, we had a large number of failures ] 22 in our requalification exams. The training program ) i 23 was judged to be unsatisfactory. Once again, we l 24 determined that strong management attention was 25 necessary. ! l u- ) i NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Icland Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 ! i
J ;,
;e. . .~f~~
40 , L 1- ' A s. a result , : t he ' following~. a'et ions were b.s 2 taken. 'We installed. an on-site simulator. We 3 increased the licensed operator training staff. All 9
# 4- operators who were holding a license at that time were F either sent through both the classroom and the j
G simulator portions of a hot license training program.- 7 We expanded the requalifiention training for 1.icensed 8 and non-licensed personnel from four .to eight weeks l
.9 per year. This includes five weeks of simulator 10 training.
'll This upgraded program has weeded out. . poor 12 performers. At the present time, less- than half of 13 the-licensed operators who were here in 1985 are still a.
14- in operations. The results and the benefits of these 15 actions are now being realized, as demonstrated by our 16 most recent performance. In-January of this year, 22 17 operators took the NRC rualification exam. -One 18 hundred percent passed, In March, ten took the 19 II initial licensed operator exam. One hundred percent 20 passed. I consider this program to be solid. 21 Additionally, the NRC recently determined that our
'22 training program is fully satisfactory.
23 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I have a question. 24 Did you say your operators spend five weeks on the
'25 simulator, full five 40 hours weeks or 200 hours?
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
Y' f f J'
, A -t Ma iqf s m
9,. n s
, .A 41 jI ~ 1 . 'That's quite a bit more than what INpO recommends, p .
i: . . g; ,.
. / 2. MR. MYERS: Yes, tr s . .
3 Finally, professionalism. The final y , 4 measure of . a competent, 1icensed -operator' i s. - hi s - a. 9 , 5 demonstration of professionalism. We consider the an 6 operator's professionalism i's' demonstrated daily by e 7 -their attitude, their actions, their attire and their 8 sensitivity to operating details. We have taken steps 9 to ensure that our operators maintain an ownership i
-j 10 attitude toward the plant. I have personally.
t 11 conducted several meetings where I dwell on-reactivity 12 controls, ESP actuations, -surveillance requirements,
"~
13 procedure adherence, and a professional attitude as 14 established by our code of conduct. 15 We have completely revised our conduct of l 16- shift operations procedure- that establishes strict j
.j 17 -- standards for the code. We - clearly spell out our l; i
18 standards of operation. By s t andar'ds I mean plent i 19 communications, standards for procedure adherence, 20 standards for testing and standards for routine shift I i 21 operating duties. 22 I want you to know that we have a solid 23 group of managers within the plant staff group. The 24 management has a good balance of experience both from l 25 within and outside of TVA. i l u .._ NEAL R. GROSS i f 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 7' L - m;.; (202) 234-4433
vp >g , i n' . , , ,
, c. ;
m , i. y j r-- 42 y ~ p 1 In addition to our other initiaties, our
.2- management team is focusing on scram reduction and 3 secondary plant reliability. We- are reviewing all I
- ', 4' previous scram reduction activities. This review has 5 resulted in a large preventive maintenance effort on 6 our main turbine, our main generetor, our feed pumps
< -7 and our control valves.
8 I consider our- operators ready t.o operate : 9 Browns Ferry. We have a strong plant management team. 1 it 10 Shortly, all the systems'will be turned over. I will !! 11 be. accountable for setting- priorities and a good I 12 leadership role. 13 (Slide) My final area is the power 14 ascersion program. The content of our program is the ! 15 result of TVA experience and other industry experience 16 such as Peach Bottom and Pilgrim ~ and. the NRC 17 regulatory guide for a near term operating license f 18 plant start-up. The program' consists of 32 tests and 19 closely resembles that.of an NTOL plant. The power 20 ascension program would demonstrate the functionality 21 of our systems. Your staff and mine have had numerous 22 discussions regarding the scope of t he power ascension 23 and I am pleased to learn that the NHC staff has 24 recently concluded that our power ascension program is 25 acceptable. NEAL R. GROSS ~ 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. ' Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
7 pj 9*. o [ r-- - 43
~
1 ~ To assure cont rolled return: to full power i 2 operations, we have integrated seven management' 3 3 assessment hold points- in' our . tes t. sequence. .Your. 4 staff has selected four of the~seven as NRC points. 5 The_ vendor. will be of great _ value. We 6 have arranged for GE to provide. botl technical and 7 management personnel throughout the duration of this ' 8 program. .I will_use.these people as a good monitoring 9 tool. We have formed a management assessment 10 committee comprised of experienced plant personnel and-11 General Electric 'managemen t . t o assist Ike and me in 12 performing-a thorough, comprehensive' assessment ofJthe 13 plant's readiness to proceed to the next plat' eau, i 14 I have just described my perspective of 15 the key areas needed for operational readiness. In 16 closing, I want again to state that we will be ready. 17 We have a que/.ity plant, we have a quality. staff and 18 we have a quality working environment. 19 Mr. ungsley will now provide the closing 20, remarks. 21 MR. KINGSLEY: We've got one matter we 22 need to clarify on the simulator training. Ike is 23 going to talk-about that. 24 MR. ZERINGUE: Generally, our simulator 25 training is four hours classroom, four hours on the I u ._ NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
~J 44
~
l 'simu'lator. We're- providing additional on simulator- ] R 2- time with regard ~to the training we're doing for the.
, 3: power ascension program. We're doing special start-up L 1 4- simulator training. !
5- MR. ii1NGSLEY: In conclusion, I'd like to- ! G, say . that we believe there are no significant, there l 7' 'are some, technical _and programmatic issues ' remain'ing 8 to be resolved for Browns Ferry Unit 2- for restart.- 9 We do have work to be done. We have to"de that in a 10 systematic fashion. As you have _ heard, we think we. j i
.11 have a handle on completion of this remaining work.
12 There will be assessments by a senior TVA management?
' 13 .. team and'the independent - operational readiness review-14{ team that I talked about who have already completed I 15 two reviews on the Browns Ferry plant prior to our
- h. 16- ~ coming back and requesting permission to restart.
Mg[ $ 8- 17. I feel that our power- ascension test 'T; y-18 program will ensure a careful and deliberate process
'19 to reach full power. We'll be conservative in this 20 restart. We'll be cautious and if any problems arise, 21 we won't hesitate to stop what we're doing and 22 reassess and reevaluate before proceeding.
23 Finally, I'd like to sayione other thing. 24- The NRC staff deserves to be commended for their
'25 commitment to the safe restart of Browns Ferry, for I
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
L . ,- ( + m.
, 45 ' ' ~'
I their han'dling of a very large.' workload,,and for their
=2 professional-~ conduct on- the job and dealing with the , 3 Tennessee Valley Authority.
4 Now.we'd be= happy to. field any questions,
.]
5 -Mr. Chairman, that you might have. 6 CHAIRMAN CAR'R: Thank you. 7 Commissioner Remick? 8 COMMISSIONER REMICK: .One thing that-9 ~ struck me,.Mr. Kingsley, that you said and Mr. Myers 10- said was -- you said, -" We have the right people in- 4
)
11 place," and Mr. Myers.then says that the philosophy'is 12 that management should; stand up and say, - "I have a - 13 problem and I'm going to solve it," something to:that. > 14 effect..= . 15 But when I read. the most 'recent SALP' 1
'l
- j 16 report and your response, there were lots of comments 17 'n i there that additional management attention needed i 18 to be directed to problems, whether they were 19 maintenance, training and so forth. Although that 20- covers the period.I guess roughly the year before this 21 past July, there seems to be somewhat of an 1 22 inconsistency. Now, is there a dramatic change since 23 that time that the staff'made these comments? ;
24 MR. KINGSLEY: No, I don't think there's a e 25 dramatic change, Forrest, at all. You take in the 'i i
- s- <
NEAL R. GROSS ' 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. .20005 (202) 23s-4433
~
(?
~ ,
- s. .
L, . u T r
.j.
46 1 maintenance area.. We-did have some areas.to improve. 't t 2 We haven't done a-proper job in scheduling. We've had 3- a large maintenance backlog, as you've seen. We've' , V 4- had to work that- out. We've had problems with the 5 preventive maintenance p ro g r ani, but we are working 6 that out. 7 I look at- the S ALP and I think it is an 8 accurate report on the plant. We -take that very C 9 seriously. We have- a detailed action plan on every i 10 item that's in there. We made a commitment to the NRC 11 to resolve that. It's.the only way'I feel that we can ' 12 get better. So, I don't think that there is a-I 13 disparity between what you see in the.SALP report and-14 where we are.
. 15 COMMISSIONER REMICH: The current n;
16 management team that you described to us, was that in 17 effect during that SALp period 7 18 MR. KINGSLEY: Not that whole time at all, 19 no, sir. No . way. We were able to bring in the 20 operations manager. The technical support manager i 21 came in in the fall of this last year, some of.them 22 even later than that, and we've seen some big 23 improvement in what this management team was able to 24 do. 25 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. You also a l NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
v, . ... .,- f e gd ' ' *O s- 47
~
1 . referred to that there's .been an improved' safety e . 2 consciousness. .Is'there anything that you look at, is.
'3- there.- anyt hing particular that you feel was-effect'ive- -!
4- ;in' raising that consciousness within the organization? 5 MR. KINGSLEY: You want to take it? :; 6 MR. ZERINGUE: Yes. Several items. We 7- talked about a number of them last time when we were 8-
~
here with~ regard to how we view ourselves. We' talked i S about -- Lew mentioned an incident 1.s ve s t i g a t i o n - 10 program. That's very crucial to us. .If something 1.1 happens, people at Browns Ferry now understand that Ji 12 it's incumbent upon us to understand clearly why it 13- ' happened so it won't happen again. We spent a lot of
"~]
i 14 time talking to the individuals themselves, explaining 15 to them that we need to take the time to do the job 16 r i gh t'. 17 That might sound like rhetoric, but it's' 18 really not. That's what we believe. If we stop when, 19 we don't understand something and get that cleared up, l 20 that's going to save us time. That's going to save us
\
21 errors. So, we're not trying to push people beyond
' 22 their capability. We need to understand why something 23 happened so we can prevent it from happening. That's 24 a very key item.
25 This is a very simple philosophy, but I NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
63 1
- . c. .,-
.- 4,:
49 e h
= t 48
' ~
1 because it's simple I think it works. The other.is,
'2 if you're not sure, stop. Get i t' cleared up._ If we '
.3 .can do just those two little' simple things, we'll be 4 well on our way. I 5 COMMISSIONER- REMICK: Some of your old '
l 6 plant people, older from being there before, did you 7 have any specific difficulty with trying to get them 8 to think that way? i 9 MR. ZERINGUE: Absolutely. Yes,'we:had a h-
.10 tough time-with it. We certainly had a tough time _
11 with it. I think at this point they're seeing results
- 12 though. We had to force this occur. .But as people 13 saw that yes, indeed, this does help, then the buy-in
.14 increased -and we still need to continue to increase 15 that buy-lii 16 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. You made a 17 statement and I'd just 1ike to make sure I understood,.
18- that when you were talking about the system pre-op i 19 checklist you indicated that the NRC -residents u- 20 participated. ' 21 MR. ZERINGUE: Yes,-sir. 7 22 COMMISSIONER REMICK: The word-23- " participated" surprised me a little bit and I wonder 24 what you meant by participated. 25 MR. ZERINGUE: We have walkdowns of the NEAL R. GROSS g 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D'.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
' :. , [
e 'do b i, 49 I systems as part of the process. The NRC residents i
-2 : participate in those walkdowns of the system.
3 COMMISSIONER REMICK: As. observers? When 4 you say participated, I'm not quite sure how to draw 4 5 the liNe.
-i- 6 _MR. ZERINGUE: They observed the, process .
4 7 and. at ' times they' re critical of the process. We -i
, -8' receive _quite a bit.of input from the residents with 9 regard' to the quality of the walkdowns that we're' ,
10 doing. ,
- 11 MR. .MYERS: Let me say something. '
12 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Yes, sure. r~~ 13 MR. MYERS: Each one of the . system 14 engineers have been instructed that any time they're 15' doing something with their particular system that the 16 NRC-: might be concerned about, to notify them. That !
, 17 gives them the opportunity to look at what we're 18- doing.- We've developed a matrix of people. to do
.19 walkdowns with for each system that has management 20 involvement, that has operations involvement,-
21 maintenance involvement and the system engineer ' 22 involvement. Whenever we're doing something that the 23 NRC might be interested in, we notify them and we tell i 24 them what we're doing. 25 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I assume they're r- - NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
o s 3 r p .,..
. t s 1 y 50.
1 .doing this as observers. 2 MR. ZERINGUE: participate was a bad word. 3 Really, it's a critical observation of the process. I i 4 MR. KINGSLEY: 'It's not in cahoots with or'
's 5 something like that.
6 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Thank you.- All bi 7 right. ' ' 8 You mentioned the STA. What's your ! q . 9 philosophy, TVA or Browns Forry, on STA? Do you use-10 them as a second SRO on shift or as-the separate stand 11 ' alone STA? If the latter, do you license them or p 12 encourage them to be licensed? _;
13 MR. KINGSLEY: Forrest, they were in a .-
w-14 separate organization when I came to TVA. They-were { 15 in the technical support group. 'We have moved them to 16 the operations group. They now functionally report to
.17 operations. They're' functioning with those shifts.
18 We're in the process of licensing these . people now. 19 We do have some of those people licensed. We don't i 20 have all of them, but we've made, I think, a big 21 improvement there. They're an integral =- .much more 22 an integral part of the team than they were. 23 COMMISSIONER REMICK: But they are a 24 separate member? They aren't the second SRO? 25 MR. KINGSLEY: No, they're a separate i NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 L (202) 234-4433
h- ,
- . u ,;
[ j. 4.. E, i-((- y r- 61 u l
'~ . +
1 member entirely and we intend to keep them there. We q 2 have a senior shift operating , supervisor. We have an ; 3- assistant shift operating . supervisor, both licensed E 4 SR0s, and then we have the STA. We've also added i
.5 another ' senior reactor operat'or who ' supervises our. a y 6 auxiliary unit operators out=in: the field. That was a e 7 lessons learned from other places and at the.Sequoyah '
7 i 8 plant where we were not controlling those people to -l 9 the fashion I thought-we should. So, we've added that I 10 also in our organ.ization. o ; 11 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I see. Okay. 12 Some~ time ago, the ACRS expressed some 13 ; concern during power ascension programs', concern over .l t 14- operating for' lengthy periods of . time at relatively 1 15 low power and . concerns that you're operating in a
, 16 condition where systems were not necessarily designed 17 for. Do you have any concerns on your power ascension 18 program about staying too long at low power levels and 19 so forth? Have,you given any thought to that?
20 MR. MYERS: Yes. We developed our program 21 based on looking at Pilgrim and other similar plants. 22 The plateaus we picked to operate at we feel are 23 similar to the -- about the same plateaus they operate 24 at. So, we should be able to operate there pretty 25 reliably. In fact, usually around the 60 percent mark j 1 u .- l l l NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. I I Washington, D.C. 20005 ' (202) 234-4433 l
jf wQ l
- t w,
k , ., l;in
?
r; w;: , , t'- '\>
, s 2 1 52
$ 'l- .or 70 percent;. mark you're probably : mos.t ; reliable' and !
, '2 you ' can lose a- feed ' pump or something and not; even t ,.
't C,
,4 3' have a probism.
4 MR. 'KINGSLEY: I'm not ' aware- of . those -f a:. . 5 specific concerns. We'll go'back and. check that. We
- 6. did send a team to the pilgrim plant.to look at their M 7 entire test- program and do some lessons learned.
-t 8- We've also. had ' people .that have learned from ~ peach-9 Bottom also and their test program. But we'll look 10 specifically at that --
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. ; 12 MR. KINGSLEY: -- because we're not aware 13 of that specific concern. , 14 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Yes. I don't think 15 it was around the 60 :cr 70 percent, but down at lower 16 power levels, if you have extended periods of question 17- or you have-things throttled back so far and so forth-18 that they aren't an optimum position. 19 MR. ZERINGUE: Our test plateaus are well 20 above that. 21 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I see. Okay. , 22 One last question, just to provide.you the 23 opportunity, if you wish. Do you wish to address 24 anything to the Commission on the Commission's 25 proposed modification to its fitness for duty rule? l NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
- (202) 234-4433 o.
g( g 4 g ,7 4 3. . 4s 53'
'^
l ~MR. KINGSLEY: Well, we feel very strongly H 2 that it'is management's right if someone preliminarily 3 tests positive that we should be able ~ t o take those 4 ' people off. We feel like it would be very seriou's- ll i
-l 5 consequences if we were to have any type' event with jl G that person particularly in license duties or in any' I o 7 other responsible -- doing' safet y-relat ed work. We 8 hopeL you people support that. We'll be filing some. !
9 official responses within'the next two weeks on that. ! 10 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. Thank you. { l 11 Thank you, Mr.-Chairman, 4 12 CHAIRMAN CARR: Commissioner Curtiss?
' ~~ '
13 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: In view of the
~
14 condition of my voice here, I just have one question. q t 15 Could you address the steps that you've taken since i 16 you were here last on the question of -employee j 17 harassment and intimidation, what- procedures . you' ve
.\ ,
18 established and how' successful you think you've been in 19 wrestling that problem down? n 20 MR. KINGSLEY: We'd be happy to. We've 21 done a number of things since we were here last. 1 22 We've significantly improved the communicatior.s at all 23 of our sites. We now have a very good procedure where 24 the Office of Inspector General investigates any case I 25 either brought by our employee concerns or through a u_ 1 NEAL R. GROSS I 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
(- 1 , 40 pg; 54 1
*~ 1L Department of Labor _ case so we ~ get a good, independent
"^
'2 outside review of that so that'we'can'take action.
3' 'We also now' take casca which we call 4- management and' personnel, i.e. they have not gotten to 5 the I&H situation and_we require ~immediately that the G Vice President responsible. for that functional area 7- get involved in that, senior- human -resources 8 management and top site' management involved, and we
- 9. 'have prevented a number of cases.
10 Now, to use the Browns Ferry plant as an 11 example, we're averaging . anywhere from eight to nine 12 concerns down ' there per month total brought to our-
-13 employee concerns program. 'We have only had four -- I 14 take that back. It's six cases brought either through 15 .our employee concerns program which were elevated up i
16 to the Inspector General involving intimidation and ^ 17 harassment. All six of those were found to not exist. ; 18- We did have one case of co-worker sexual harassment. ; 19 With respect to the Department of Labor 20 situation at Browns Ferry, .we've had a total of 16 21 cases at that site over the entire period- since "2 Section 210 has been in effect. Seven of these cases 23 have been totally resolved. All of those were in 24 favor of TVA. And the other nine we've had six of 25 those investigated at the wage and hour level. All of NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 .
Q, '
, 1
;},a s .g s
A f i SS
~
.those have ' been ~ in~ favor of' Th.
x/ ' 1' We have .one that- , s 2 went up to the Secretary of Labor. .It's in favor 'of t
.c r
, 3 TVA. . .And we'have two others that are. currently being 4 investigated. .
I g 5 So, we feel like we've done a very good 6 job. We are also seeing a down turn in the; number of
'{
7 Department of Labor cases filed } rom 1990.to-1989 from 8 an overall standpoint. 4 9 The traffic is higher, commissioner ' 10 Curtiss, at our Watts Bar plant. We still have {
. 11 additional work. As you know,, I now hav'e an 12 independent counselor working directly' for me. The 13 employee concern staff works-for me. We h' ave started t .:_
14 =another training program, very fundamental, for some
, 15 200 key managers at our Watts Bar plant and I think 16 we'll see some very good results. We have another 17 briefing with-the Board and the combined group there 18 next week reviewing that entire situation. So, I -- !
19 think we're. making progress. 20 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Thank you. , L 21 CRAIRMAN CARR: Commissioner Rogers? 22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes. l 1 23 Mr. Myers, you mentioned -that your ~. 24 operator code of conduct was modified. Can you ! l i 25 indicate what the changes were that were made and what ' l NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. , Washington, D.C. 20005 ' (202) 234-4433 , a
F; 'o e'**'. }l;ho g-m w , -
+
![,,
, , 56 6+'- .
11 do'you think,was their; significance? n
. 2 MR. MYERS: If you look at the actual 1 3 codes, it's'the same code.- We went_back and got the 4- code improved. It'wasn't hanging at the right places.
i 5- I-didn't find that people knew the code. At.the last r
- 6 two licensing banquets that we've'had, I.'ve gone overi 7 the code with -the operators. So, we f r am e'd . i t , we !
8 made it larger and we made each-operator sign it and' 9 then we signed onto it.
-(
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: But th'e content -- 11 MR. MYERS: The content is basically the- i
-12. same as it was. -
13 MR. ZERINGUE: We essentially had n' code
'14 that was hanging in the closet.
15 MR. MYERS: That's right. l 16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: So, -you brought it
,i 17 out and got ~ people on_ board.
18 MR. MYERS: Yes. 19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: You have had a large 20 number of management position changes. I wonder what 21 your comment is with respect to institutional memory'. 22 When you make 'that many changes in significant 23 positions whether there is some danger of losing-the ! 24 experience that you've had over the years from people 25 who are no longer in key positions and rer aced by
. r-n NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
m
# I t L--
+
l* . .' , yU ' [V ' 57
~
y 1 people from coming outside the organization? -I just I 2 wonder' what your thoughts are on .that question- of-
- 3 institutional memory. ,
i a 4 : M R .' MYERS: From my perspective, looking 5 at the organizations and my. plant staff, in every 6 organization that I have, I have a very good balance 7- of previous experienced people' and people. from 8 outside, looking at that situation'right now. Ike was , 9 talking - awhile-. ago about the turning over systems and , 10 the attitudes. My perspective is you can feel , 11 everyday more of an ownership role of the plant and' 12 the- team beginning to take shape. So, I feel 13 confident with the management staff and the experience- ; 14 level we have in our crafts at the present time. Goo'd 15 balance. 16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well,.it cuts ' both l 17 ways. Sometimes there's some-= memories you'd-just as
]
18 soon forget.
-19 MR. MYERS: That's right.
20- COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Good. Thank you. s 1
- 21 That's all. t 22 CHAIRMAN CARR: Listening to your pit.ch of, 23 what's left to do, I guess I -- what do you think the 1 24 controlling path is to getting back up?
25 MR. KINGSLEY: I think there are two NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. , 1: Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 7
g 1 T
- j. ;_w , ,
, , , , x' '
> : U.
58-
,))
? Ll: critical areas. One is what we commonly cal 1' paper 2' ' closure. 'That involves . all' of the correct closure -
s- ._ . 3 within the engineering organization, which is a huge l 4 effort. We're resolving all, past design changes on 5 Browns Ferry. We're having to correct a large number G off. drawings . We're h a v i n g .'t o' make sure .that the J 7 calculations are correct. We loaded fuel into. that 8 . plant with what's called 'UVAs.. That's ' unverified ' 9- . assumptions, and all these have to b'e addressed and 10 put to bed. 11 So,- tt re's a very large amount of work [ a 12 within the engineering organization. We have about i
~
13 250 TVA people and a very large Bechtel staff working 14 on that, updating drawings, what have you. We still 15 have paper within the -modifications organization. 16 That has to'be pushed out, resolved and that'all flows 17 and ties together. !
'18 On top of that, we still have a good deal 19 of testing to do, what we- call post-modification
.20 testing and what led us to put very :large' 21 contingencies within the schedule. We do find 22 breakage within that and that is a risk to be managed.
23 That's part of the- thing. We're bringing in some 24 additional, I believe approximately 20, start-up > 25 engineers in total there to work on that. We have to i u NEAL R. GROSS , h 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 q
N , , ,, 4-s - ,j-l
/-f .
j m :
~
l' 'i ntegrate this. We've not done the best job ~in that
.2 area. We're still learning. how to run an entire 3 operation of this type where you schedule .every '
, 4. maintenance that you've got to do that day. -It also 5 has to be tied to the correct system. You have to 6 schedule all the te* ting on each system and how that !
7 does. 8 We've made some improvement. We're-9 progressing slowly to where I would-like for us to be
- 10. such that we.can do that. So, this entire management 11 of this post modification testing is still a risk.
12' .CRAIRMAN CARR: Okay. Any other C .13 questions? 14 Thank you very much. 15- MR. KINGSLEY: Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN CARR: And we might mention one ~ 17 thing. I noticed in the list of commitments you made 18 in the back of your Enclosure 2 to your SALP response 19 a very impressive list of commitments.
?
20 MR. KINGSLEY: Yes, sir. We take that [ 21 very seriously and we will do that. j 22 CHAIRMAN CARR: I hope you've got a good 3
- 23. tracking system for all those. :
1
- 24. MR. KINGSLEY: We do. We have a system, .
I 25 what we call a project chart, something Mr. Ebneter , s NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. . Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 .q
V
, '}ki ; ' i 4 4 i
y
'H 60- '
l' [s[ =- 9 1 brought in here. We have all that listed and we meet 2 'with the staff and that is .i n there.as-a commitment. j
.i
(' 4
- 3 That's in a -- in fact, I have that piece of paper 4 with me today - - I l
5 CHAIRMAN CARR: Me too.
- a 6 M R .' KINGSLEY: -- that has that number. r p
-7 CHAIRMAN CARR: Okay. I'll keep watching' 8 it.
9 MR. KINGSLEY: Well, I see it's getting 10 the right attention. Thank you, 11 CHAIRMAN CARR: Okay. 12 All'right. Mr. Taylor, please proceed.
'~ 13 MR. TAYLOR: Good afternoon. With me at t 1
14 the table from the of fice of NRR, Tom Murley, Suzanne 15 Black and Thierry Ross in between is the project-16 manager. To my lef t . Stew Ebneter and Bruce Wilson 17 from Region II. Bruce is the Branch Chief with 18 responsibility for Browns Ferry. 19 Through the long recovery, the staff has-20 been critical of schedules at Browns Ferry. However, 21 in recent times with the management. changes, the staff 22 has' increased confidence'in their ability to both get 23 work done . and presumably to be able to project the-24 schedules. Nonetheless, we'll be watching as the work 25 proceeds. u_ NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
y a t n ..; i y,.C :.. ; e r - i-# ~ 61 1 There is still -work to i do 'before 2 scheduling a potential restart ' meeting with the 3 Commission. WE'll keep the Commission advised ~of that as the time goes on.
~
4 There's still work to.do and ! 5 you'11 hear rec re about that from the. staff as ~ the - 6 Company has also covered part of it.
- 7 I'll now ask Tom to start this. !
8 DOCTOR MURLEY: Our activities, of course,
~
9 track very closely with TVA's and they'have, as you've 10 heard, just recently reevaluated ' their schedule. We j i 11 will do 'an operational readiness assessment team. ! 12- inspection at the site. It -will probably be- in. =., 13' February, t.ccording to current schedule. I will'mee't ' 14 with the ACRS full committee also probably in
-15 February. We're going to issue the next supplement of 16 the SER toward the end of October. So, that will be 17 in about a month. Then, of course, we'll come F,ek to 18 the Commission for criticality and according to the ;
19 current schedule that will be in March'or April, f 20J There are a number of. licensing activities ' 21 and licensing actions and Thierry Ross is going to i
.22 talk about those.
23- MR. ROSS: Thank you, Doctor Murley. 24 (Slide) Can we have slide 3, please? 25 We last reported to the Commission in SECY f i i 1 l NEAL R. CROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. l l- Washington, D.C. 20Qfl5% l- (202) 234-4433# % 1 J L
y, , g _ :; m _ /.: 7 <j 62
~
[ a 1- -paper 90-148, April = of this year,. a! number of the - 2_ : restart activities that the staff had- identified' ? -3 earlier that were to-be resolved toisupport restart at fF 4 Browns Ferry Unit 2. The staff is. prepared, as Doctor k 5 'Murley mentioned, later next. month to come out-with a !
- , , G supplement to NUREG-1232' that will address. those- 3 ;
d 7 restart issues. - 4 8 To date,_ the staff has resolved from a i
% 9 technical basis all those issues with TVA and at.this
'10 L point in time it's a . question of TVA actually 11 implementing those programs or completing the i-12 implementation of those programs and for Region II to
^~-
13 confirm and verify that implementation. i i 14 For example, one of those : items that we 15 put down on the slide- for entrance was' fire 16 protection, in which. Browns Ferry to date fully 4 17 complies with Appendix R with only five . exemptions. 18 As exemptions go, five is a relatively low number for 19 any plant and it's particularly a low number for a 20 plant of this vintage. 21 The s taff .also has to address some 16 22 restart technical specification amendments prior to i i 23 restart. We feel confident we can support that. 24 As TVA mentioned earlier, all TMI action 25 items will be implemented prior to restart except for u -- NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
- p. , ,a
;; l t 1:< , J.-
J,[ N..
.;. 63 -
'Y
. 51 :two. ' Detailed ' control room ' design review that. the a h,,6
'o "* .
2- staff is still' evaluating is scheduled _to-be' completed a+ 3' from a mod's point of view a t- the next'. cycle .6-L4 -. r e f u el i n g outage. The safety. parameter display 5- system, the staff is awaiting TVA's. submittal 'with 6 their final design description. In the.meantime prior 7- to restart, TVA plans to implement an in t e rim ',sys t em. 8 The staff will inspect and evaluate-as an acceptable 9 tool for the operators,
~
1 10 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Question. On the'16 11 technical specifications, you said: you thought :the 12 staff _would support them.
* '13 MR. ROSS: Right.
1 14 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I'm not sure what. 15- you mean by support. Do you support the modifications < 10 proposed or do.you mean you have the staff to support
~17- the time schedule? ,
18 MR. ROSS: More of the latter. We have 16-19 amendments to date. We're anticipating that no new 20 technical specification amendment requests will be
-21' identified prior to restart. Cone.idering the time 22 period that we were working to up to a week ago, it
' 23 would have been a very significant challenge for the 24 staff to accomplish 16 amendments. Now, with the 25 approximately 90 day slip, discussions we had with our i
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
I. g
'a -
y g , 64 E mN '
~1 reviewers, we_ have- sufficient- ' staff, the- 'prioritles 2- have been appropriately identified and it would appear 3 that the staff can support the restart date assuming 4 -t' hat ^something unforeseen doesn't happen in. supporting l f . l 5 the-staff and doing'our reviews from TVA.
6 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Thank you. t 7 CllAIRMAN CARR: Give me _a couple- of. f 8 examples:of those Appendix R exemptions so-I'11 get a
-9 warmifeeling.
~
10 MR. ROSS: All right. There are five la exemptions that were approved by the staff earlier in 12 1988. An SER was issued on October 21st of '88. One ! I 13 of those exemptions -has to do that there. is' no- !
. .\
~ 14 automatic . fixed fire suppression in the control room.- l 15 -This is a1 pretty standard exemption for'all plants in 16 that : fire sprinklers, for example, or.Halon actuation
- 17. systems ' are just not appropriate in a control room i 18' environment.
19 As a counter balance, the staff has , i
- 20. approved continuous detection. There's also the $
21 compensatory measure that the -control room is manned 22 24 hours a day. , 23 CHAIRMAN CARR: I guess my curiosity is if 24 it's one of those things that's a standard exemption, 25 why don't we change the requirement rather than keep ) 1 , u-1 i NEAL R. GROSS l 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. l' Washington, D.C. 20005 ; (202) 234-4433
70 ? it - '
' !? L 0 !
6 T-: . . r .i Rs . - Uf[d .
+
l::
*' 65
' ' ' 1 1 exempting- everybody. Are . those the. kinds- of things- -
,. 2 we're talking about?
- 3. MR. ROSS: One ' o t h e r' exemption 'that's; 11 ' similar to that that would be appropriate to BWRs in
.5 that the rule could-be interpreted that alternative '
- 6. shutdown capability must maintain reactor coolant 7 ' inventory above the core. For BWRs .in certain 8 scenarios, which means blowing down the - reac t or : vessel-
'l 9 to actuate LpSI, there is a possibility that'the core i 10' becomes momentarily uncovered.
A 11 CHAIRMAN CARR: Okay.
$>- '12 - MR. ROSS: An exemption for BWRs is fairly-13- standard in this situation.
-14 CHAIRMAN CARR: All right. Now, talk to 15 me a little bit about seismic issues. ,
! 1G MR. ROSS: 1 As far> as seismic issues go, 17 the ' staff has resolved the major program areas 18 proposed by TVA in their nuclear performance plan. We 19 have written off the bulk of those in .the past 20 supplement to NUREG-1232. We plan to write off the 21 rest of those programs in the. upcoming supplement.
22 At this stage in the game, this is
-' probably our more vulnerable area of r ciling some
. technical issues in that a past inspec' identified 5 some 14 inspection open items that the staff is i
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 , (202) 234-4433
' ~
ll , , , w.. ., 4 i L r-- 66 j
~
] "~ :1- - relatively confident- can be resolved. We 'are:
2 reviewing the closure packages and .the work thatLTVA-. r s3 ' has .done, the analyses they' ve -' performed - and 'we ' re. 4' still in that process of. getting information .and 5 discussing those inaues with TVA. 6 From an implementation standpoint _, I think. < y , . 7 as Mr. Kingsley indicated, there is some work. .i l 8 activities, involved. All the pipe. supports 9 modifications have not as yet been totally completed, ', 10 at the plant. I believe Region II plans:a follow-up- . , 11 inspection that have been going on to this cate to-l 12 continue to track those activities. 't 13 ' CHAIRMAN CARR: But as of now we don't- '! 1 14 have any major. concerns? ! 15 MR. ROSS: Correct. [ 1 16 CHAIRMAN CARR: We think they'll come in
' 17. all right?
18 MR. ROSS: . Correct. 19 CRAIRMAN CARR: Okay. 20 MR. ROSS: (Slide) Going on, slide 4, 21 please. 22 Looking at generic issues, all- those l 23 generic issues, bulletins, generic letters, USIs, 24 unresolved safety issues, GSIs, have been or will be 25- implemented prior to restart that the staff has f_ r i___ NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 , (202) 234-4433
g.s , i- , [. .
; y
i 67
- l. determined necessary to support restart'of the plant.
2- For those items that will fie complet e. af t er restart, c 3 an appropriate schedule .has. been approved by the 4 staff. 5 Some of . the post-restart generic issues
}
g 6 include, and these <are the major items, station .) 1 7 blackout. 'The staff anticipates issuing an SER on; j [ 8 station blackout ~about the end of the year. 9 Hardened wetwell vent. TVA. has l 10 volunteered to implement the hardened wetwell vent at: 11 Unit 2. Their schedule shows the next refueling 12 outage after restert. R 13 The.IPE, individual plant examinations per l
- 3
.14 Generic Let t er ' 88-20. The present schedule for that- j j
15 is ' Sept ember ' of '92, at ~ which time the staff will , i 26 conduct its . reviews, the utility will implement '
]
17 whatever modifications they deem necessary from that j 18 effort. 19 :Any questions? i' 20 (Slide) Next slide, please, and I'd like I 21 to-turn: it over to Mr. Ebneter of. Region II. 1 22 MR. EBNETER: Good afternoon. a- i i 23 First I'd like to clarify something for i 24 Commissioner Remick. We do not participate in TVA 25 inspections. We do performance-based inspections i l
- l. NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
l Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 l
h -+ ,
,a .. ! g- - G8 ' ~
I which means we observe them and we document those. 2 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Thank you. 3 MR. EBNFTER: The second comments start 4 with -- I would like to add.ess the Chairman. We do 5 look at that commitment list vecy closely also. 6 CHAIRMAN CARR: Yes. It was just the 7 length and the breadth of it that surprised me, I 8 guess. 9 MR. EBNETER: Well, we'll hold them to it. 10 With regard to the inspection program, we-
-11 have developed an inspection program that- is 12 - consistent with the TVA recovery and restart schedule.
13 Wo have been able to maintain that schedulo maybe 14 perhaps because they've had so many scheduled slips. 15 But we have been able to keep up with their 16 activities. I 17 The resident staff presently is at five 18 and we have that supplemented with team inspections 19 from Head 's es and the Region. 20 We- have conductei 30 inspec+ ions since 21 July of 1989 and those inspe.tions inc D -le the large 22 team insnections for the maintenance team, requal 23 examinations, vertical s1 ice reviews. The ones we 24 hrve to do yet are the operational readiness one which ' 25 Doctor Murley commented on, and that will probably be NEiL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 I M // a
c; . , (i'O a' }W s l s yg a 4. J l lp *j\ b 69
~ , j c 1 done next February. We still have employees concern t:w r T %g '
2 inspection and a major one focusing . on the system O h if, 3 turnover process that TVA dwelled on. m v is& 4 We think the present TVA schedule, as h 8 5 revised, is viable. It looks quite realistic assuming Y G there are no major problems and assuming that their
$ 7 productivity estimates pan out. So, we think that's a
.na 4t 8 viable schedule.
9 There has been good improvement in the
, 10 management stability. We think they now have a stable q
'p! 11 management team and that was a-major problem as far as.
in 12 I'm concerned with meeting schedules. I did spend 13 some time in the' control room last Friday and talked c 14 with the . control room staff. I must say morale was
).'d 1 15 probably the highest I have seen it at Browns Ferry,
, 10. which is a good sign. They seem to be well qualified 17 and understood the E0Is in the control room.
18 That's all I wanted to comment.on. I am j 19 optimistic about the schedule and what they're. ag I h 20 and I'd like Bruce Wilson now to discuss with you the 21 details of our inspection program. L' 22 Bruce? 23 MR., WILSON: Thunk you. Good afternoon. i 24 The Laster inspection plan was developed - 25 with three purposes in mind, to verify completion of I I NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 n (202) 254-4433
' f c. .
W j, ;4. f p . r- 70 , e ' ' I the -commitments in the Browns Ferry nuclear ' 2 1 performance plan, volume 3. Examples include' major 3 programmatic areas such as maintenance, quality 4 assurance, environmental qualification and design 5 baseline verification program. G The second purpose was to ensure that 7 routine operational programs are properly implemented. 8 These included radiological controls, security, 9 - eaergency preparedness and configuration management. 10 Basienlly, this was the manual chapter ' 25.15 program 1 11 for operating reactors. 12 The third purpose was to ensure all 13 engineering and technical issues have been adequately
'14 resolved. Although many of these areas overlapped l 15 with volume 3 commitments, these areas included the 16 electrical issues such as ampacity, cable pulling, 17 cable weparation and the Watts Bar identified -cable 18 problems. Also, ATWS reg guide 1.97 and fire 19 protection issues.
20 In addition to the master inspection plan, 21 we are using a 94-300 type letter to track the various 22 phases of the program completion and to track the open 23 items in the remaining inspection programs prior to 24 restart. In the last year or so, we've closed over 25 300 open items and have roughly 100 remaining before r-I NEAL R. CROSS ' 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
i o; ... ] i.
'~
i 71 I restart.
~
I 2 Since the Browns Ferry SALP report t was. j 3 issued ' on -June 14th of ' this year, the -region is 4 preparing to initiate quarterly plant performance ! 5 . review meetings in order to more closely- ' align our' l G inspection program with the normal manuni chapter 7 25.15 program. , 8 (Slide) Slide 6, please. l 9 The major inspection areas remaining. 10 Doctor Murley and Mr. Ebneter have already mentioned' i 11 the operational readiness team inspection. This~will, . 12 be conducted out of NRR. 13 We' will continue to look n 't the 14 surveillance program, as TVA-had mentioned previously. , i IS This was primarily a result-of programmatic breakdown l 10 that- they had over the past two years or so in the
.4 17 surveillance area. We issued a severity level -III > i x
18 violetion with no civi'l penalty last year. Primarily. ! 19 mitigation of the civil penalty was based on their , 20 corrective actions they had taken by the time the : 21 enforcement action became finalized. We still' are f 22 awaiting close-out of the surveillance aren based on-23 once they have implemented and started using some of 24 these new complex surveillances after fuel load. 25 In addition, we will look at the employee i v NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. t 3 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
+;' D, l l c i r-- - 72 ,
~
1 concerns program. The employee concerns program, 1 2 there are basically two. There's the- employee l
- 3. concerns program and the employee concerns special l 4 program. The special program was up until February j 5 1st, 1986, and this is the one that we still have some ;
i 6 open. items to look at, primarily because TVA still has )
, 7 approximately 59 what they call " corrective action
~
8 tracking documents" they must resolve prior to start-9 up, and we will look at that area.
.10 And finally, the major area we have to ;
11 look at is system turnover, the SP0c or SPAE process. l 12' We have five residents on-site looking at this, ! 13 augmented by one udditional resident inspector, and it .; Hu . i 14 is a verificatien of the licensee's process and we do
, 15 not do any consulting or other work with regard to 16 that.
17 (Slide) Next area, please. Next slide, . ' 18 please. 19 In terms of problem areas, as we see it, 20 between now and the scheduled restart date, from an 21 inspection point of view is system turnover is- the 22 first area. As of September 21st, TVA had turned over ; 23 25 systems to operations with seven exceptions and 27 24 deferrals. This means that all of the work has not 25 been fully completed on these systems, although in r-
. 4. -
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
;m' (202) 234-4433
[ e , c
.)l
_ go .. I I 73 I terms 'of exceptions all work has to be done prior to j
-2 them declaring the systems operable. - We think this is
- 3. manageable, but at this point with many complex 4 - systems remaining it is an area we will continue to 5 look at.
- G CHAIRMAN CARR: Twenty-five of how many?
7 MR. WILSON: Exceptions? ! 8 CHAIRMAN CARR: No.. no. Twenty-five of- t 9 how many systems? l 10 MR. EBNETER: Eighty. 11 MR. WILSON: Eighty systems. U 12 CHAIRMAN CARR: Eighty. 13 MR. WILSON: In the second area, as TVA , r 14 had already mentioned -- I won't go into any detail-- )
'I 15 was their scope of remaining bulk work. such as the~ '
1 e 16 hanger-mods and the number of feet of cable they have 17 to-install yet. l 18' And in the third -problem area, there's 19 paper work closure, such as Mr. Kingsley mentioned, i 20- drawing deficiencies and engineering calculations. .
.t 21 Are there any questions? !
22 s CHAIRMAN CARR: Commissioner Remick? r 23' COMMISSIONER REMICK: In the fact'in the 24 most recent SALP report, there were several areas- - i 25 wl.ere they had category 3. How do you go about I NEAL R. GROSS L 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
- Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
+.
o s df **
.i b Fl 74 r-w -. :
[ l integrating or do yo'u integrate those areas into your , L - p 2 operational readiness assessment team inspection? Do. ' p - 3 you particularly look at those? My question, I guess, ; 4 is do you in any way integrate'the-SALp findings with [ 5 what you do on the ORAT9 6 MR. WILSON: Absolutely. One prime i l- 7 example would be in the maintenance surveillance area. L 8 One of the reasons that they received a SALp category l t b 9 3 in maintenance surveillance was because of the ! r r 10 programmatic breakdown in surveillances, and we' , i 11 absolutely intend to look at that both on the ORAT'and- !
. 12 in the resident 's. follow-up on the corrective actions 13 to the surveillance program.
I 14 COMMISSIOKCR REMICK: Okay. I assume you r 15 heard my question earlier about the fact that there ~i t 16 were'in the SALp reports a lot of references'to needed 17 attention by management,' additional attention, and the ' 18 comments about n good management' team, the right team , 19 in place and so forth. Do you feel that the current 20 management team is paying the proper management 21 attention to areas like maintenance, quality assurance 22 and so forth wheru weaknesses have shown in the.past? 23 MR. WILSON: I personally believe they 7 L 24 have, yes. I think, as Mr. Kingsley said,- there's ; h 25 been a large turnover of management personnel in this
' t u.
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. l- Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
w. a
, , , , V1 4 ,
q .. .. ,
.. r ' 7 6.
~
L1 particular time period, particularly considering that 2 this SALP period ended in March of this year. And if, 1 3 you look at the turnover of pe.?sonnel that they have-4 had in that particular time period, that accounts for
. S- a large percentage of their people.
6 A lot of the comments in the S ALP . were ! 7 based on recommendation or were recommendations that
- 8. we said we felt that continued management attention to f
9 this area was necessary in order to achieve program 10 improvements, which as we felt that the management'
'll . attention was there, but it had to continue at a hikh 12 level.
13 MR. EBNETER: Well, let me comment ~myself. 14 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Yes. 15' MR. EBNETER: Mr. Kingsley has been. 16 spending much more time at the site also, which is a
- 17. . major contributor to this. He also assigned Nick
'18 Kazanas, who is another vice president, who had been 19 head of the quality assurance organization to the 20 site, as a special manager to oversee some of the
'21- n.odification process. So there was much more senior 22 management attention at the site now, direct !
23 involvement. S ,24 COMMISSIONER REMICK: That always draws a l 25 1ot ~~ , u -, ! i l NEAL R. GROSS l 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. 1 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
9 ,
; p -- .
o y . . -
, . . r- 76 ,
'~
[ l' MR. EBNETER: Yes.
~2 COMMISSIONER REMICK: -- more attention.at ,
I 3 the lower levels. 4- A question I should have. asked TVA, but. lf 5 perhaps you can comment on it. I'think in'the SALp G. report ~it refers to modifications to security system g 7 being underway and finished, I think, by' '92. Is 8 there-anything in the open session that you can tell' , 9 me the type of modifications, why that's necessary? ; 10 Were there deficiencies there or is this just a 11 modernization or upgrading or what? 12 c. MR. WILSON: Both. I know one involves- j i
- ~ ~
13 the protected area fence and access controls, and the -{ 14 second involves computer systems that TVA is 15 purchasing to upgrade the overall quality of their 16 system. I think the' detail < they would be much better i f 17 qualified to talk to you about. , t 18- COMMISSIONER REMICK: The area fence, now. -l 19 there was a fence there before. What would this be? 20 Is this an upgrade, increasing the height, enlorging
- 21. the area? ,
22 MR. KINGSLEY: Would you like us to answer 23 that? 24 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Yes, please if you .
'25 will. Yes.
i.,
. s. - -
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
l$ a -C
. .- :,- ?w>,
. o? '
1, 77
- m. -
MR. KINGSLEY: Ike will answer. . 2 MR. ZERINGUE: Ike Zeringue. . We moved the 3- fence.in to reduce the prot ect ed ' area. We've done-- s 4 basically, the improvements were to allow us t oi 5 increase the reliability and modernize'the system, E , , G fields, additional cameras, those kinds 'of things' , , o ; 7 ' essentially a basic upgrade. ;! 8~ COMMISSIONER REMICK:. Was this TVA 'I 9' initiated, or is this the result of deficiencies being ' 10 found on ' inspect t on or -- 11 MR. Z3RINGUE: This is the first phase of-12 .our improvement. It has been TVA initiated. As { q
- 13 identified in-the SALP, we have had hardware failures u.- .i 14 and .it's necessary that we upgrade the reliability of 15 that equipment.
16 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Okay. Thank you 17 very much. 18 MR. EBNETER: I should' comment. That's 19 TVA-wide, by the way. They are upgrading all of the. < 20 sites. . 21 COMMISSIONER REMICK: I see. Okay. 22 That's all, Mr. Chairman. 23 CRAIRMAN OARR: Commissioner Curtiss? e 24 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Just one question.
-5 CHAIRMAN CARR: Last one more question?
NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. .; Washington, D.C. 20005 j (202) 234-4433 " _ _ _ . ~ ,
F . ; 2
.,$. Aa r- 78' IL COMMISSIONER CURTISS: One -last question: ,
?
;- 2; before my voice goes.
3 On the operator readiness program the 4 licensee has outlined, are you comfortable with the ; [ 5, - program that they've set ~ forth and in particular the , 6 focus on getting hot license experience so that when P 7 the time comes these operators who have been out of 8
' the loop for a -long time now will be ready to operate- 2 t' ;
i- 9 the plant 7 i 10' MR. WILSON: Yes, I feel confident in it. 7 11 I was involved 'in the requalification exams in 1985
'~
12 when the problem with licensed operators first i
" ~~
13 surfaced and I think they've made great strides in l 14 upgrading the quality of their . licensed personnel 15 since then. They have, as I said, a large additional . 16' amount of simulator training. They have sent their , 17 people off to Monticello for observation. They ~ are 18 going to use experienced people during the restart, j 19 And we, as part o f- NRC's operational readiness 20 assessment, will be observing their crews on the 21 simulator. i 22 The only problem we have right now is that 23 the simulator, I believe,= there is an exception to . 24 upgrading according to part 55. 25 MR. ROSS: Exemption.
'h NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 . (202) 234-4433
( - t . t c. r i 79 , 1 MR. h)LSON: An exemption. 2 CHAIRMAN CARR: Cot.n.issioner Rogers? 3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Just on that, whet 4 does that entail? G MR.'ROSS: Exemption request?
?
G COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes. I 7 .R. ROSS: I believe the -- 8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: What is the 9 shortcoming on the simulator? 10 MR. ROSS: Recognize that the simulator at 11 Browns Ferry is probably one of the oldest simulators 12 in the country. They have requested an exemption from 13 the rule requirement -to fully upgrade the simulator, 14 and I believe that comes due sometime in March of91. 15 They could make that date with a number of exceptions . 16 that would be legitimate within the rule. 17 They have planned a more comprehensive , 18 upgrade of their simulator, which will take them more 19 to the end of the year, around the December time 20 frame. So rather than going through the regulatory 21 exencise of having their simulator pedigreed with a 22 whole laundry list of exceptions, they've requested 23 the staff to give them a temporary exemption until the 24 end of the year where they can come forward with a 25 clean product. i NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
p A ', .... gg L. . '
..E 4
..m .
., 80
' ~
1 COMMISSIONER' ROGERS: Expecting.to replace 2- the simulator, or just -- 3 MR. ROSS: No. I believe they're just
;, 4 modification upgrades.-
,f S COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Software or hardware g 6 or both? 7' MR. ROSS: Both. ( 8 MR. KINGSLEY: Oliver Kingsley. 9 We're making. extensive modifications. All 10 the- software is being essentially ' changed. ~ We're ! t 11 putting in new computers, much better computers. It 12 will handle.a much larger spectrum of accidents. 13 in addition to that, there's .a lot of 14 hatJware changes we're.having to make. ' We will save 15 the original boards, and that 's .about ' it. So it's 16 very extensive and it will take'a little longer to do ; 17 the job correctly.
"18 ' Once again, we're a little behind from the 19 standpoint of letting the original- order and -it's
. 20 taken a lot'of. programming time. But we will come in -
21 in the: fall of this next year on that. 22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: -That will be' in 23 place then, or -- 24 MR. KINGSLEY: S-s. That's - the fall of' 25 1991. All the testing and everything, we'll do that, i j.. 4- t NEAL R. GROSS 7 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 .i
2 , ,,. t. j 81 I and.it will be in the November time frame that we'll i 2 hcve that fully in place. 3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Thank you. 4 Just with regard-to going back to the SALp 5 category.. One of the weaknesses in which there was a G category 3 rating was' inconsistencies in quality and-7 timeliness of submittals and responses ' t o the NRC. .! 8 Could you just comment on where you see that now? 9 MR. ROSS: Wells I might be able to 10 comment on both those areas. particularly, TVA had a 11 very difficult problem 1 think in the past'in meeting 12 a lot of their scheduling commitments with respect to 13 the NRC on supporting submittals, either requests for 14 additional information or follow-up activities 15 associated with ongoing reviews, and chronically had 16 to reschedule in a' sequence of events. For example, 17 if it came due in March, they'd ask for 30 more days. 18 Well, 30 days later they'd ask for 30 more. Rather 19 than sort of biting the bullet up front and saying we 20 need 90 - days , you'd get three requests for 30 day 21 extensions. 22 Since that time frame -- and I think n lot 23 of it has to do with the new management team on-site, 24 the support the licensing organization has been 25 getting -- since the summer of this year, they have NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island I, venue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
m.c i e; 3 hii ) i y <> .c - u, ; u o j , Q-- 82 [' l' < consistently made -all their commitment dates for 2 submittals. I can only think of one particular 3 except16n where they negotiated a new date with the 4 staff on that. So the -improvement with meeting
'5- established time tables. for submittalc so- that the G. ' staff can support their restart schedule has been very 7 good, p 8 CHAIRMAN CARR: I assume when you come L 9 back with the next briefing you'll tell us what the 10 staff intends to do as for as inspection coverage for.
11 fuel loads, start-up, that kind of thing? 12 MR. EBNETER: Yes, sir. We do plan 24 s 13 hour round-the-clock coverage'during those and we have 7 14 a plan laid out. We can address it at the next
-15 meeting.
10 CHAIRMAN CARR: Okay.- The impression- 1. 17 got from TVA was that they and you have agreed on 18~ those things that are going to be deferred past start-19 up and we don't have any disagreement with their list 4 2 0 ': of things that aren't going to get done before e. tart-21; up? 22 MR. EBNETER: I think in general I've 23 consistently told -- and I think Mr. Kingsley i 24 mentioned that, that~ there are -- I expect them to 25 meet all their commitments.
.u NEAL R. GROSS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. _
Washington, D.C. 20005 4 (202) 234-4433 p u --
1 r ,r ... U + 4 f 83 F--
~
L .1 Now, there are a few -- one area l's aware 2 of. We are still discussing the extent, perhaps- of 3 3 'some'of the tests like the' shut-down from outside the ; 4 control room and exactly what we expect in that area, ! 5 because that's listed in the reg guide. { G But in general, no, we're in pretty much-7 . agreement on what's expected and we plan to hold them t + 8 to those. 9 CHAIRMAN CARR: Any other. questions? , 10 Well, I'd like to thank the Tennessee t 11 ~ . Valley Authority and the staff. for their. very l 12 informative briefing. .; 13 I would remind TVA the Browns Terry units J( l 14 are currently the only category 3 plants,.and I'm sure 15 you know that es well as we do'. That shut-down you've. 1 16 had, of course, is a significant loss of generating '
~
17 capacity and I know you'd like to get that back.on the' 18- line. I applaud your goal of getting it back.on-the 19 line safely. Schedule is not the driving factor. .t 20 Doing the work right is the driving factor. You have'- j 21 demonstrated ability to recover and correct problems 22 at Sequoyah, so I see no' reason'if you've got the right 23 management team in a place you can't get it done at 24 Browna Ferry. So we'll be following your work with , 25- close interest.
., t
\
NEAL R. GROSS ; 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 ,
ra 5 e < I ')<
'y_x .-
.c.; ,
r , , k.?
- a -
jfic: 4 u :p .
- r-- -
84 ,- Ar!'ILthankithe staff and'I:take note of-1 o m 2- the compliment ~ 'that TVA has . paid the staff- on 3._ 3 supporting the TVA' work.- I.know you have, and I know ( 4 it's been a tough row and I think you've hoed it well.- i. ($ ,' .' 5 Thank you-very much. 6 If. there are no. further questions, . w e - i. l" 7 stand adjourned. p 8- (Whereupon,- at 3i47 p. m. ,- the above-M 9 entitled matter was adjourned.) f 10 11 12 , ." 13-t __. 14 15 16 17 IB ? 1 u= ii; 20-i- 21 if, -. g. , su 23 W 24
-o.
pj ;- 25- <m, A . .. . 1;y n> u (M> > NEAL R. GROSS
#' 13P3 Rhode: Island Avenue, N.W.
( . . Washington, D.C. 20005 g % -(202) 234-4433
I CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting ' of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ent:ltled: TITLE OF MEETING: PERIODIC BRitJING ON THE STATUS OF BROWNS FERRY UNIT 2 PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND , DATE OF MEETING: SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 were transcribed'by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my. ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events. , m nk i Vk keporter's name _ Peter Lynch i HEAL R. GROSS COUef RfpoeftR$ AND TRANSCRIBER $ 1323 RH0061$ LAND AYINUE, N.W. (M) 234 443 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
TVA BR. OWNS FERRY NUCLEAR 3'LANT i UNIT 2 i NRC COMMISSION MEETING . . SEPTEMBER 26,1990 1 -
~
O
. 6 ,.
AGENDA
- 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . O. D. KINGSLEY II. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . O. D. KINGSLEY 111. SITE ORGANIZATION . . . . . . O. D. KiNGSLEY '
i IV. SCHEDULE STATUS . . . . . . . O. J. ZERINGUE V. OPERATIONAL READINESS . . L. W. MYERS VI. CLOSING REMARKS . . . . . . . O. D. KINGSLEY 4 2 - 4
- v e wv -a r. '
ws-. .,.e, . .w-w- .v, .e. - v- _ ,-_m _- _- __m- 2_________.._. _ _ _ _ _ __..,_._____._.___,___._m-mm___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
,c . m .. . t II. BACKGROUND . SCHEDULE IMPACT
- Fuel in the Vessel i
- Emergent Work /New Discovery
- Additional Cable Testing ACCOMPLISHMENTS
~
l
- Defueling Unit 2 .
i
- Productivity improvements .
- Better Safety Conscience
- Better Licensing Performance
- Better Material Condition i
of the Plant 3 - r4 e a
+ ^ =
'% - % -^Lw. v e- _ -- - x _ _ __.__,. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _________u___.__w.- -
- ' ~
d e BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT - ,
SUMMARY
LEVEL ORGANIZATION CHART C'Vice President Vice Presid(nt l Vice President ; Nuclear ' Assurance, Nuclear L Nuclear -- - Licensing & Fuels Operations Projects
' M. O. Medford J.R. Bynum -
D. Nunn . I : Browns Ferry . j
- " Site Director '
- .O.J. Zeringue -
I ' I I I I : I , c. , r. _
, rc ,: c .
Manager of Site Quality ' " E " "#
- Site Programs ( BFN Plant!:
o s Restad Se.ces Site Licensing Manager .. & Support Mgr recumnent j Manager P.P. Carier G. G. Turner S.H. Rudge L.W. Myers E E' ' - : '"#8'N -
- R.D. Hicks "
~
.w H.H. Weber. . . M.W. Franks C O C J j
~
D t' ; C u t D d :
- r. . .m a n r m r. _
.m r. . ,
r , c- ,
~ Maint.
Radiological ~ Technical'
. Operations: ...
Mods : Project Mgmt j Project -
. .-Manager j 3 Manager
- Conte SuppMy Manager:: -B.T . Manager . . Manager: , Engineer - .
- A.W. Sorrell - M.E Herrellz. R.W. Johnson H.E. Crisler J. Rupert :
[ J.M. Corey - McKinney.) l c -f3/3\ c p . :f \ fx( ~f\
.f .
- (
1/4 3/5 a r , I
; Managernent Personnel . Direct Reports Changed Since 1/1/89 '
Changes Since 1/1/89.: / Direct Reports i , 4 . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _______m_ - . _ . - " _ - w d__- -v-_ - - - _- - - - - u-w
- - * - ' "-.- T--"w -.w,, + M- w --W -> r *T-^- - - < -
_ ww __ --arw-- m_ __
. _ v .. 2 IV. SCHEDULE STATUS ,
- Schedule issues
- Current Status
- Unit 2 Return-to-Service Schedule-i L
i r S
- 5. -
_i,_s _ ,= _ _ _ + " < ~a -
w = g --ec r - - w.., , m- -a w .# >w,, _ _n **_-__.+ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ .
- ~ :-
_ . n .
+ -
fe
~- 6 3. f s:. ,
l -, , I*'. . 1;. . , p l IV. SCHEDULE STATUS.
- SCHEDULEISSUES i
- Conceptual Versus Actual Design
- Emergent Work
- SPAE/SPOC
- Cable issues
- Breakage Rate ,
- Productivity '
- Scheduled for Success
~
f 6 - t y c -. c s-= ? - v=, , g w. -
- q r y= -
- - . c- , , , , _ w _ _-__ __ _ _-- . _ . _ . . . - -_. m2-__2_
~
4 IV. SCHEDULE STATUS i SYSTEM PLANT ACCEPTANCE EVALUATION:(SPAE) _
- Systematic Method to Establish .
4 Configuration Control ,
- Addresses:
- Drawing Disc'repancies
- ECN/DCN Closure of Change Document l
- Essential Calculations
- Conditions Adverse to Quality t
, - Restart Test Program
- Primary and Critical Drawing Restoration l - NPP Special Program Review (e.g., EO) i i
7- - l-4
^
2 IV. SCHEDULE STATUS i ; SYSTEM PREOPERABILITY CHECKLIST (SPOC) ; l
= Systematic Method
= Ensures Completion of items Related to l - Testing
- Modifications
- Maintenance
- Licensing (including NRC Commitments)
- Procedures
- Design Completion
- System Configuration
- Walkdowns
- Engineering - SPAE Checklist 8 -
- =
4 ..'--
=
~
- l
~
i IV. SCHEDULE STATUS 4 . CURRENT STATUS
- Actual Design Now Available
- Reduced Level of Emergent Work
.* Productivity Enhancements l i
- Contingency Measures !
9 -
-g- , '..g y , y y. yre< -ew' Wy*': - We 4 WW 'T T W W - ' = *1 M '" 1" ~* ' ' ' h* ~ # & w'*'adr --w w -wu#*'wd'W*' '* ** **'M' " ' '
I- ; L HA.NGER MODS - LARGE BORE - l ( 300 ' i i
- l. Before 7/89 "
148 - - l 250- - - 7/89 - 9/90 = 1979 l Remaining = 266 - 200- ' Total = 2393 i
~
150-- l
-~
100-50-1 0 "l ' i V 2 1.'. . .. JAN APR JUL OCT JAN APR JUL l 89 l 90 ! 10
~
['a_..I'.
- I I ; . f e L < [.. _ .. f.; i
~
.
- i,. # . L .P . f. _ . .? . ,
. ( . _ . . l ..\ . . .' .7L~
CABLE
- -~~ '
60,000 ' Before 7/89 = 103,002 90 = 329,433 - 50,000 _ Remaining - 126,884 : Total = 559,F 2
~
40,000-- (Sept. Current 19,000/wk.) -
-~ ~
30,000
~~ - -- ~~
- ~~ ~ ~
~
20,000 - -- - -
~
10,000-- - o _q , = sii W ] ! 7_ l, E,- E,s , ,= _ , , JAN APR JUL OCT JAN APR JUL l 89 l 90 l 11 l
.. :. w_ :
~
t l ECNS/DCNS DESIGN CLOSED- - Before 7/89 = 814 1401 7/89 - 9/90- = 686 b{ : 120-] l l Fid. Complete = 104
' Remaining = 4 51**
80_ . Total = 2055 60-40 ' l 20-l O . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . JANUARY 89 JULY 89 JANUARY 90 - JULY 90 i !
*9/90 Total through 9/19 L i
, **396 of the 451 Involve Actual Field Work i 12 -
. .. . ir, , . , , _ _ _ _ _ __
k, ,n_..-_ , .. _..-.._..-.j
M _.M-2 MAINTENANCE WORK ORDER BACKLOG 8,000 >
#N _ - _ . - _
~
i 6,000 5,000-N N ~ 4,000- \ N l 3,000- , l 2,000 1,000-0 , , , , , , , , , , . . i MAY AUG NOV FEB MAY AUG l 89 l 90 I
+511 Awaiting Testing 13 i
= -
i IV. - SCHEDULE STATUS CONTINGENCY MEASURES i I.
~
- Margin Factored into Current Schedule
- Added 50% Duration to Large Bore -
Hanger Work ' l - Added 30%. Duration to Cable / Conduit Work l
- Assumed Only 80% Craft Utilization I
- Assumed 12 Days Lost Production Due to Holidays :
l - Added 30. Days Contingency L 1
.14. _
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ - _- _ _ m _ _____ _ 2_ __ '.r*-_ < - _ _______._:, ~.c_ _______ _ _ _ _ _m,___e___._ _
.,. - ~~
n =.. : n 3; _.
- ~ -u . ___-;
=:; :5; .
_-z,__ o-m ,,. u= xx.
- :: ;. :; =-
} [ :::
r7 e _ _ ,l r
- ;z
- IV. SCHEDULE STATUS.
UNIT 2 RETURN-TO-SERVICE SCHEDULE I Window : .
- Fuel Load. January 25 to February .14,1991 1 .
- Pull Rods March 21 to April 10,1991 .
l l t 15 -
, -. / _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
y.. IV. SCHEDULE STATUS - t 3 TMI ACTION-lTEMS
+
- 109 Items -Applicable to Unit 2 ~ ~ -
~
- 105 Items Have Been Completed- '
2 Items Remain to-Be Completed Before Restart
~
i * ! - Noble Gas, lodine / Particulate Monitors
- Post-Accident Sampling i
- 2' Items To Be Partially ' Completed This. Outage
- Detailed Control Room Design Review
- Safety Parameter Display System t
l 16 - -i y
~
. . _m a
. ,. . .~-x3_...a.:+'::z,.:h.-n .z_ a. ,
.=...
1 l I V. OPERATIONAL READINESS - 1 il 4
- OPERATIONAL- PHILOSOPHY t
- OPERATIONAL STANDARDS - -
't e j i [ r j .
- 17.. .
_ - -____ _ _ _ _ - .- - _-. __- - -: c~ 4r -- -- . -~ ~ - :_ : - - - - : .~.<~~.
* : :: ~ _
~ '
. TL 7,
> - .:.==.._3 b
- V.LOperational Reddiness .
-%j l Personnel Errors - Plant; Organizations gTi
~
.= ll;,
2 7-14-14 ! 12- ' 12 10- - !
-10
.i 8-8 Errors 6-
-6 4-
-4 3
2-
-2 -
i 0-Jan Apr -0 -
- Jul Oct Jan-- ,
j Apr - ~
' Jul Aug .
89
] '
90 1.8 . _ _ _ . _. . - - . . . ., a-
~
7' w. 7
- m. ,
_ __ _ = _ .
;~: ,.~
~
~, j~: _.
e
./ .I e .s 5
4
-i l V. OPERATIONAL READINESS MONITORING i
- Line Management _
m.. l
- QA
-i
- Independent Safety Engineering-Group.
( .; I. !
- 19. -
__________-.__.,.f_,. l-
~
e 3:e w-w
. l f~_[S;; -:f . ; - -{
- :~
~
- ~
V. OPERATIONAL READINESS - wwg
^
SURVEILLANCE. PROGRAM
.J
--Technical Problems.
l -- Programmatip Problems
~
- Implementation Problems _
1 . 20. .
.i , , . .~ ..__...,..-..,,,:n. s - __ , _ _ _ . _ ,.. . . _ , . _ ,_ ,.__., ,,.n. . , _
, .-.g, .,,,,,,+,,,.,,,m
s . ;. J .:
- e. ./
V. OPERATIONAL READINESSL
- OPERATOR EXPERIENCE 1
Average' Over 7: Years of Experience
- -Participation in INPO Peer Evaluations i
Startup Training on Simulator
- One Week of. Hot. License Exparience at Monticello 1
Performance of Critical Manipulations During Power Ascension . 21 - L
,y- .- ..: - - ,..,+s y g . -w.. .y- -,, _ . . ,,..m- p m-.,_.m...r% g_., . . . _ _ _ .,.~_ _ _ , _ . - - ~_ , . , ___.-_ _ . , - , . . , , . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
4 _
4~~_
- ~, ~
~
4_ 3a.... i s
- t V.
- OPERATIONAL READINESS .. ., , 9 i OPERATOR TRAINING l
- l. - Requalification Training Expanded
! From 4 to 8 Weeks
- Results~
i
- 100% Operators Passed NRC's
'Requalification Exams in 1/90 -
- 100% Candidates Passed NRC's' initial j
License Exams on 3/90 t 22- . _ _ = - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ -- . _ - - -.a-- - ~ -- ,- .- .. - - - . _ . _ = _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
4,
~
. s
,_G k .n
- - l i
e j , L L V. OPERATIONAL READINESS - I l L l POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM l l - Peach Bottom, Pilgri.a, and NTOL l i
- - GE involvement
- Management. Assessment s.,, %
4 9 ..-
; 23 .
8 - . - . .
.l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = . . - - - . -- - _ - , . .,
_p ou*w, I'
. .g
--l-
. .e,. 6
- 4 e
BROWNS FERRY, UNIT' 2 < RESTART STATUS. ~ 1 - 4 l September- 26,1990 ' 2 1 4 Thomas Murley, Director, NRR Stewart Ebneter, Regional Administrator, RII . ' l
Contact:
T. Ross - Phone: - 492-1313.
~ ~
' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _" _ - _ .' _ _ . _ _ _ _ ~ V
'- . ' '#w *
'""P+ "F [_. "* _ ^$ "
T.'___ ' ""__*_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______m____'___-____.-___f-___ _ _ _ _ ' _ _ _ _ _ _' _ _ _ _ _ _ -'.__.a' _Y
.e .,
= . n.
39, - , n
,t'
u - RESTART MILESTONES l Issue NUREG-1232. - Supplement 2 ' Amend Technical Speelfications Operational' Readiness- Assessment Team ~ ACRS ' Full Committee Mebung a Commission Meeting on Restart :i l NRC letter to TVA approving restart. :l 2 .,
% m. w p- m. w 7
- .$. . , . . , , .,,-c...- m <- # , n. - e 4 g g.- , ,..M., s
m a .~w w.
< r = *
- - ~0 ,
, :4'
. A ;.
t i l. LICENSING ACTIONS i o Status of- Actions ~ for Restart (SECY 90148)
- - All issues. resolved (NUREG-1232) ,
l - Fire Protection meets Appendix R with -- only five exemptions granted ' 1 o Sixteen Technical Specifloations Amendments .. , I l - 1 o All TMI Action 8tems implemented, except: I l I - Detailed Control Room Design Review -
- Safety Parameter Display -System I
I
~3 -
__ ..w . . . ,g y .-m,- ~ r-y An.~-- m , -w., . ,.,, a.-,. -w , .,. ,-.4 - , , , ., , ,, .
. . ; . .: l i : .! r : : I ,
)$
y .
- i
. iI
+
.. 'm
- ?
. v - 1.
m
.y e
c J',. S E U . S ) m S l e 0 .,
)
I b : 2- ' t r a s ) D C a t e 8 8 : I R t p u ) 1 8 ~- s e s 3 T E - N e c s 8 9 L N E r c I 0 8 G (
- r. a c 5 O G o i r L n ',
f s e G o C &. e n R ( d u e F H ( , e s g C t n a _ S v s n R e i S l I E o g t r 0 V m T s a 1 a N T e r i n t s ( l l x - c n e E O I E L e i a e r t u o w t 4
'y i
n t n T C i o m e t s k c e a C r W I l t R c o a P , E r p l .z A. a o B d l N f f e a E d o n n u e s o e d G G i r e s i t dr i v N , u l e a i S _q u l p t e d ~ I N e d S H n s S I r e m I ~ T h a N E L I I A c S x E E. L - - C U - I B '- L o O
; e 4 i ; p t .m
, 1 l ' . 1 : !;I,.5't s ,
~
~ ii f . r a.
j w
- i. ' . :
,s m
~-
h' .. _
._?.
~
n s a l n _ P o i t e a r c e d n p a e o v m l ., M o r t o n. s A f r e l a e r R P p
's G r f e
u e a _ O e a s s a R l c r l 5. P N u o f l a i c . N s d e n 2 e t h O t e n c I n l e e a p t . T l P m m e d . C n o c l p n a E o m g P i t A I n c V a ,. S i T r _ e m e 1, p a N I s n f i y r g i n e I r g e o r r n , e V P E . t s - - - a M 2 o.
,, . ; - j.
, c, e t
'k' ;. > r)
( . 8.. ' .s e . '.' f 4 , 4 s . a .. r >
-; 'ri .' , ,3 ,
s q ' t, '.. it: s-t I L I O-a. ( ln i s. 2 i; O g
- t M ,
g a 1
\
L [ Q 8 fi Q g f cc a Q. n e j.I E
=
j z j g 2 * '
.O g g .
e >- g ggJ = . I. g ,
,a. .E ,
= .ti . . .
g . m . I I. 1L. e
. _ ~ . ~= - z -
- ~ = .
.;;c+c
]
.. :n . i[4 : 1 ":
. _ .. O' , " --
.}..
~ ~
2: t 4 d PROBLEM AREAS , , i i o System Turn Over -Impacted . by Schedule .
~
j o Scope -of Remaining Bulk Work " 4 6
- Hangers /Supporte -
t l - Electrical cables ' l- : r o Paperwork Closure. i i
- Drawingi deficiencies
- Engineering calculations 1
7 -
.n
_ . . . .. .,2.,_ ..
. . . _ . ._ ._ . ___ _ _ _ __. __ . _ _ .___ _____________._.___.__._____..___m_
a MWMWWWWe*****WWWA%%d%*mmewswwwswggg u , TP.AHSMITTAL TO:: Y , Document ControlLDesk,'016 Phillips
! ADVANCED COPY TO:- The Public. Document-Room .
h ! DATE:
. /4 /,7/fd _
h, 6" p FROM: SECY Correspondence & Records Branch g, Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession t.ist and =s placement in the Public Document Room. No other' distribution is requested or required. L i . Meeting
Title:
[/AA AIJ A dIf_. l [ /;Yh:w;;uW A Meeting Date: 9/,26/90 Open X Closed Item Oescription*: Copies ,- Advanced DCS
- to POR C3 ll .
- 1. TRANSCRIPT- 1 1 Zit w / s 's n s L J
( ll:< () h'
)' i 2~. -
5- 3.
- a 4.
- s. _
i
^
t
- 'l
-c
' 6- '
- . s. . -: : ---- 7
=
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper. ;
i C&R Branch files the original transcript, w;t5 attachments, without SECY-
! ""'O ? 013 plco2, r, A1AA _ q$
........... ...~............................................,,... ..................
a nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnr0WA4POWMYOWMY0TMYAWM i}}