ML20094H882
| ML20094H882 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1984 |
| From: | Banks H, Beatty G, Jennifer Davis, Dietz C, Elleman T, Howe P, Mcduffie M, Morgan R, Amy Powell, Utely E, Utley E, Watson R, Joseph Willis CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094H866 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8408140151 | |
| Download: ML20094H882 (365) | |
Text
~
I A
~*, *-
REU\TED M c*n-~ SPO ;ogp(C August 9,1984 DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISgNAGO 13 A11 :33 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t e r't : u- E E . a t' m+:
93 7 & r, s. s o In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
) .
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
Unit 1) )
APPLICANTS' JOINT TESTIMONY OF E. E. UTLEY, M. A. MCDUFFIE, DR. THOMAS S. ELLEMAN AND HAROLD R. BANKS ON JOINT INTEVENORS' CONTENTION I(MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY) 1-
~~
8408140151 840809 PDR ADOCK 05000400 T PDR
- e y
JOINT TESTIMONY OF E. E. UTLEY, M. A. MCDUFFIE, DR. THOMAS S. ELLEMAN AND HAROLD S. BANKS
, Ql. Please state your name, business address, and position with Carolina Power & Light Company and describe your educational background and professional experience.
A1. - Mr. Utley:
My name is E. E. Utley. My business address is Carolina Power & Light Company, 411 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. I am Executive Vice 4
President, Power Supply, Engineering & Construction.
I attended Louisburg College and North Carolina State University. I have been with CP&L for over 30 years during which time I have been actively involved in the power supply aspects of our Company's business. I have served as superintendent at three of CP&L's fossil plants. In 1972, I was elected as a Company Vice President and in 1977, I was named Senior Vice President in charge of the Power Supply Group. I was named Executive Vice President in charge of the Power Supply & Customer Services Group in 1979. As a result of a corporate reorganization which occurred in mid-1980, that group was reorganized as the Power Supply, Engineering & Construction Group. I am currently serving as CP&L's representative to the Institute of Nuclect Power Operations (INPO) and am 4
Chairman of INPO's Evaluation & Assistance Division-Industry Review Group.
Mr. McDuffie:
My name is M. A. McDuffie. My business address is Carolina Power & Light .
Company, 411 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Company as Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation Group. I received a B.S. degree in civil engineering from North Carolina State University in 1948. I am a registered professional engineer in the State of North
's Carolina and a registered civil engineer in the State of South Carolina. I have 32 years experience in the construction of power plants, including 17 years experience l in nuclear construction. Prior to joining CP&L, I was employed for 18 years by Ebasco Services Incorporated during which time I served as project superintendent over the construction of Robinson Unit No. 2, CP&L's first nuclear generating unit. I was also involved in the construction of a number of CP&L's fossil plants including Weatherspoon Units No. I and No. 2; Lee Units No.1, No. 2, and No. 3; Cape Fear Units No. 5 and No. 6; Robinson Unit No.1; Asheville Unit No.1; Roxboro Unit No. I and No. 2. During the years 1968 to 1970, I was Construction Manager for Ebasco and was responsible for the construction of various fossil and nuclear steam electric stations and switchyards on the east coast of the United States. I was employed by CP&L in June 1970 as Manager of Construction in the Power Plant Design & Construction Department. In 1973 I was promoted to Manager, Power Plant Construction Department. In 1974 I was named Vice President, Power Plant Construction Department. In June 1976 I was named Senior Vice President, Engineering & Construction Group, and in August 1983 I assumed my present position.
Dr. Elleman:
My name is Thomas S. Elleman. I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Company as Vice President and head of the Corporate Nuclear Safety & Research Department. My business address is 411 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, North Carolina.
I have approximately thirty years of professional experience in the nuclear field. I hold a Ph.D. degree in physical chemistry and have worked as Assistant Chief of the Chemical Physics Division of Battelle Memorial Institute, as head of the Advanced Fuels Development Department of General Atomics Corporation, and
as a Professor of Nuclear Engineering at North Carolina State University. From 1974. to 1979, I served as Department Head of the Nuclear Engineering Department. I left there in 1979 to accept my present position at CP&L. I am a certified health physicist, a former chairman of the North Carolina Radiation 4
Protection Commission, and a member of the Nuclear Advisory Council established by Governor Richard Reilly of South Carolina.
Mr. Banks:
My name is Harold R. Banks. My business address is Carolina Power & Light Company, 411 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. I am employed by Carolina Power & Light Company as Manager - Corporate Quality Assurance.
I have 20 years of naval experience. During 10 of those years, my work was directly related to naval nuclear reactors. While in the Navy,I qualified as a senior reactor operator and as an instructor. For four years I also served as a Nuclear Ship Superintendent and was responsible for the construction, quality assurance, and startup of new submarine nue, lear plants as well as for the overhaul and repair of operating submarine nuclear plants. I joined CP&L in 1968, and since that time, I have been actively involved in the Company's quality assurance program. As the ,
I Project Resident Engineer during the construction and startup of H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2, I had responsibilities relating to quality assurance and I also servqd as a QA Resident Engineer at our Brunswick plant. In 1971,I was promoted to Manager
- Quality Assurance in the Power Plant Engineering & Construction Department, and later, I was named as Manager - QA & Training Audit for the Special Services Department. In 1976, I was named Manager - Nuclear Generation. I also served for fif teen months as (he General Manager of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant before I was named to my current position in February 1981.
s Q2. Mr. Utley, please state the purpose of the testimony which will be given by Carolina Power & Light Company in this hearing on Joint Contention I in the Shearon Harris operating license proceeding and briefly summarize the testimony.
A2. Mr. Utley:
Joint Contention I, in effect, challenges CP&L management's capability to
- safely operate the Shearon Harris plant because of past occurrences at CP&L's other nuclear units. The purpose of the testimony which will be presented by CP&L in this hearing is to respond to that allegation. The testimony willshow that CP&L has the capability and the commitment to operate safely the Harris plant. At both the corporate office and at the Harris plant we have organizations that will permit effective management control over, and involvement in, the operation and maintenance of the Harris facility. In addition, we are implementing programs that we have carefully developed for the staffing and training of sufficient numbers of qualified personnel to properly operate and maintain the Harris facility. Finally, CP&L has established various organizations, both on-site and off-site, which provide technical support to the Harris plant and each of our other nuclear plants.
We acknowledge that we have had some difficulties in the past in the operation of the Brunswick plant. We believe, however, that the way in which CP&L has responded to correct those difficulties demonstrates CP&L's management ability and determination to tackle and to resolve successfully the complex problems which face, in varying degrees, all utilities operating nuclear power plants today.
Our experience in operating the H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2, a pressurized water reactor (PWR) of the same general design as the Harris plant, generally has been positive and we believe it is a valid indicator of CP&L's ability to operate the Harris plant in a manner which will assure the protection of the health and safety of the public.
s In short, we believe that our management personnel have the capabilities and experience to direct competently our nuclear operations; that we have the quantity and quality of staff to operate safely our nuclear plants; and that our management has demonstrated the flexibility and willingness to change in order to meet the challenges of a complex industry.
CP&L's testimony with respect to these various subjects will be presented by several panels of witnesses. Mr. McDuffie, Dr. Elleman, Mr. Banks and I will testify as to the structure of CP&L's corporate organization responsible for nuclear activities. We will also discuss our management philosophy with respect to nuclear safety and quality assurance and describe the programs that are in place to ensure that these philosophies are implemented.
Next, the Project Managers and Plant General Managers of the Brunswick and Robinson Nuclear Projects, Messrs. Howe, Beatty, Dietz and Morgan, respectively, will discuss in greater detail the organizations, personnel and programs at each of those plants and the operation of those plants from a nuclear safety perspective.
Finally, Mr. Al Watson, Vice President, Harris Nuclear Project; Mr. Jim Willis, Harris Plant General Manager; Mr. Jim Davis, Senior Vice President, Operations Support; and Mr. Wayne Powell, Director of Training for the Harris Nuclear Project, will testify with respect to the organization and staffing of the Harris plant and our corporate training programs, all of which have been designed to ensure the safe and effective startup and operation of the Harris plant.
Q 3. Please provide a brief description of CP&L's nuclear experience.
A3. In the 1950s, CP&L participated in a joint venture to construct an
! experimental nuclear reactor at Paar Shoals, South Carolina. With the success of this venture, CP&L decided to build Robinson Unit No. 2, a 665 megawatt Westinghouse PWR. This unit, which began operation in 1971, was the first i
4
, ~ , - . - . - , , ,----,--,--,---------,--,,---,,,-,nm._n,-,---,n-n.-- -
---rc,-. --,,~,,nn-
' operating commercial nuclear plant in the southeast. We then began construction of the Brunswick plant which consists of two 790 megawatt boiling water reactors (BWRs). These units began commercial operation in 1975 and 1977, respectively.
We began construction of the Harris plant in 1978. Orginally intended to be a four unit plant,it will now consist of one 900 megawatt PWR.
Q4. Please describe the philosophy and commitment of CP&L's management with regard to the safe construction and operation of its nuclear plants.
A4. CP&L's management has always recognized that proper safety practices and strict adherence to all applicable governmental regulations and CP&L procedures
- are necessary for the safe operation of its nuclear plants. It is an expressed corporate policy that CP&L will design, construct, and operate its nuclear power plants without jeopardy to its employees or to the health and safety of the public.
Pursuant to this policy, CP&L is committed to accomplishing the design, construction, and operation of its nuclear plants in accordance with Nuclear Regislatory Commission (NRC) regulations; to carrying out commitments to NRC Regulatory Guides and engineering and construction codes; and to operating each plant in accordance with the terms and conditions of its NRC operating license. .
This written policy has been distributed to all appropriate CP&L management and operations personnel i
While adherence to NRC regulations in the conduct of our nuclear operations is essential, we believe that we should strive to excel in those activities and to establish for ourselves standards in excess of minimum requirements where, in our judgment, it is appropriate to do so.
This corporate commitment to safe nuclear operations is supported by the Power Supply, Engineering and Construction Management Philosophy. This I philosophy recognizes that those factors that produce efficient operation-namely, l
i L
v good planning, proper employee training, efficient management controls, accurate specification of responsibilities, and good working relationships among employees-
- are also the factors that willlead to the safe operation of our nuclear facilities.
QS. Mr. Utley, please describe the structure of CP&L's organization for manageme..A of its nuclear facilities.
AS. Chapter 13 of the Harris Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Amendment' 13, dated June 12,1984 contains a detailed description of our nuclear organization as .well as the qualifications of CP&L's management personnel. Sections 13.0 thrcugh 13.1.3.2 and 13.4 through 13.5.2.2 of the FSAR are Applicants' Exhibit __.
I will highlight some of its more significant aspects. As shown in Utley el al Attachment I to this testimony, the organizational structure with respect to CP&L's nuclear facilities begins with the Board of Directors. CP&L's Board is a strong one, and it has among its membership well qualified executivas. CP&L supplements the Board's experience in nuclear power activities by providing the Board with outside assistance from various consultants. For example, Mr. Lee Sillin, the former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Northeast Utilities and the current Chairman of the Board of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), has been retained to work with the Board and to keep them i abreast of nuclear programs.
The Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of CP&L is Mr.
Sherwood H. Smith, Jr. As such, he is responsible for overseeing all of CP&L's operations. Mr. Smith is extremely active in the nuclear industry's activities. In t
i June of this year he was elected Vice Chairman of the Edison Electric Institute.
1 Reporting to Mr. Smith are three executive vice presidents and one senior vice
(
r president.
4 As Executive Vice President of Power Supply, Engineering and Construction,I have responsibility for supervising CP&L's power supply, engineering and construction activities. There are five organizations reporting to me which, together, comprise our nuclear program. These are: the Nuclear Generation Group; the Operations Support Group; the Brunswick Nuclear Project Department; ,
the Corporate Nuclear Safety and Research Department; and the Corporate Quality Assurance Department. In addition, the Fossil Generation and Power Transmission Group reports to me. The Power Supply, Engineering and Construction Organization is shown on Utley elal. Attachment 1.
The Nuclear Generation Group is headed by Mr. McDuffie, Senior Vice President. The Robinson Nuclear Project, the Harris Nuclear Project, and various engineering and construction sections comprise this Group.
The Operations Support Group is headed by Mr. James M. Davis, Senior Vice President. The Group's role is to provide technical support services to each of the nuclear sites. It ensures that the plants have uniform and high quality programs for nuclear operator and craft training, emergency planning, radiaticn control, environmental protection, and nuclear fuel procurement.
Overseeing the Brunswick Nuclear Department is also a part of my responsibilities. This department is headed by Mr. Patrick W. Howe, Vice f
President, who is responsible for the safe operation, maintenance and modification of the two Brunswick units.
The remaining two departments function as the company's independent review branch. The Corporate Nuclear Safety and Research Department (CNS&R), led by 4
- Dr. Elleman, Vice President, has the responsibility for ensuring that the Company's nuclear programs are carried out in a safe, effective manner; for establishing and monitoring the corporate health physics policy; for assessing the effectiveness of i
-. , . ,,, , -.-.-,..-.e-,-,-r,-,,,, ~ ~ , . .,--,...7%,. -,...ww w,,,,wvc-.--,-.,, mm--.y - %% rr ,,,w ,-------,-# .y- . - , ,7.---..~,
m _ . ___ _ . _ _ _ _- - _ __ ._ _
4 the health physics programs; and for directing a research and development program to assist management in planning for the use of new technologies in the Company's operations. The dorporate Quality Assurance Department (CQA) is led by its Manager, Mr. Banks. The CQA Department is charged with ensuring that corporate and plant procedures are adhered to and that compliance with governmental regulations is maintained. This organization's programs encompass plants under construction as well as those that are in operation. Both of these departments will be discussed later in this testimony. ,
Q6. Mr. McDuffie, how does the Nuclear Generation Group provide support for CP&L's three nuclear plants?
A6. As Senior Vice President of the Nuclear Generation Group, the operation of the Robinson and Harris Nuclear Projects is under my direct control. In addition, it is the responsibility of the Nuclear Generation Group to provide thethree nuclear plants with whatever resources they may request to enable them to carry out modification projects and other activities related to the construction, operation and maintenance of the plants.
Within the Nuclear Generation Group, there are four supporting organizations: the Nuclear Engineering and Licensing Department (NELD); the 4
Nuclear Construction Department; the Engineering & Construction Support Services Department; and the Nuclear Staff Support Section. A chart depicting the Nuclear Generation Group is set forth on Utley elal Attachment 2.
4 NELD is headed by Mr. Al Cutter, Vice President, who has extensive nuclear
- power plant experience. This department supports the three nuclear projects by
) providing design services end is responsible for procuring and maintaining construction and operating licenses.
~
?
NELD consists of four sections and one unit: the Nuclear Licensing Section; the Nuclear Engineering Projects Section; the Engineering Support, Nuclear Plants
^
Sections I and II; and the Safety Review - Nuclear Engineering Unit. The Nuclear Licensing Section provides the Company's principal interface with the NRC and advises the nuclear projects on regulatory matters.
The Nuclear Engineering Projects Section manages contract engineering work and ensures that the three nuclear projects receive the design and engineering support they request.
The Engineering Support, Nuclear Plants Sections 1 and II provide electrical, mechanical and civil engineering design support as requested by the three nuclear .
projects.
The Safety Review Nuclear Engineering Unit reviews CP&L plant LERs, NRC notices and bulletins, and information from INPO and other organizations in order to identify potential problems or trends at CP&L's plants and to provide feedback to the nuclear projects in order that any similar problem in CP&L plant systems ,
designs can be corrected. This unit also assures tl$at as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) concepts for radiation control are considered in engineering designs.
The Nuclear Construction Department is headed by Mr. Sheldon D. Smith, who has over 30 years of construction experience. This Department provides the three nuclear projects with construction procurement services, expediting services, surplus inventory control, contracting services and construction equipment.
The Engineering and Construction Support Services Department is headed by Mr. W. V. Coley who has 25 years of engineering and management experience with CP&L. This Department provides cost control, cost reporting, and estimating and budget preparation services for the Nuclear Generation Group.
I i
To support the three projects, the Nuclear Staff Support Section works closely with the department managers at the nuclear facilities to ensure that programs and procedures are implemented consistently. - This Section is also the Company's primary contact with INPO programs. This Section is headed by Mr. J. L. Harness who has over 25 years of nuclear experience.
Q7. Mr. Utley, please describe the other CP&L organizations that provide support to the three nuclear projects.
A7. The Maintenance Support Section, which is within the Fossil Generation and Power Transmission Group, provides maintenance manpower support to the plants during outages and other times when increased labor support is required. It accomplishes this by directing the services of traveling maintenance crews and by coordinating the use of contract maintenance personnel.
The Operations Support Group led by Mr. Davis is comprised of four departments: the Fuel Department; the Materials Management Department; the Operations Training & Technical Services Department; and the Environmental Services Section.
The Fuel Department determines our needs for nuclear fuel and procures nuclear fuel at the lowest cost consistent with quality requirements. It is responsible for all related activities, such as forecasting fuel requirements, ensuring timely delivery of fuel to the power plants, and performing nuclear fuel analyses.
The Materials Management Department is responsible for the purchasing, control, warehousing, distribution, salvage and disposal of Company material requirements, except for generation fuel, power plant construction materials, and land. ,,
l .
The Operations Training & Technical Services Department provides centralized services to the Power Supply, Engineering and Construction organizufons for radiation control, chemistry, operator and technical training and
- emergency preparedne.ss.
The Environmental Services Section provides the scientific expertise which the Company requires to ensure that its construction sites and operating facilities are in compliance with pertinent environmental regulations. Its personnel have expertise in the areas of fresh water and marine aquatic systems, terrestrial habitat, air quality, metallurgy, metecrologteal and seismic monitoring, and permitting.
I Q8. CP&L has made several changes in its nuclear organization in recent years. Please
- ' describe the most significant aspects of those reorganizations and CP&L's reasons for making them.
c A8. Since the early 1970s, CP&L has maintained a separate nuclear operations organization, with a complete technical support staff. There has been a continuing evolution in CP&L's senior management structure towards consolidation of all nuclear responsibilities within a single corporate group. Our current organization, which was just described in this testimony, reflects the latest of these changes at the corporate office which occurred in mid-1983.
In 1982, CP&L established the Brunswick Nuclear Project, which consolidated all on-site line activities under the responsibility of a single department head and corporate officer, whom we assigned to the site. This department head, Mr. Howe, reports directly to Mr. Utley.
The results of this restructuring have been quite positive. Consequently, in 1983 CP&L assigned Mr. Beatty and Mr. Watson to the Robinson and Harris sites, respectively, as department heads responsible for those projects. They report ,
directly to Mr. McDuffle.
Prior to these changes, there were three departments, managed at the corporate office in Raleigh, to which the operations, engineering, and construction organizations at the sites reported. As our modification programs at the nuclear plants became more extensive the need for greater coordination grew, and this coordination could not be performed as effectively off-site. In order to strengthen coordination and control so as to ensure safe and efficient operations and regulatory - compliance, we placed these three functions, as well as outage management and other functions related to planning, control and administration, under a single site manager.
There are, however, several site programs that can best be administered and implemented from a centralized location such as training, quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC), and nuclear safety. We believe the best way to administer these programs is to establish a central support group that defines general program features, ensures appropriate incorporation of advances in the state-of-the-art, and assigns separate units to each of the plants to assist the plants in implementing.
these programs.
The purpose of consolidating actual plant activities under the leadership of a
- department head at the plant site was to provide firmer management control over and greater accountability for activities ut the plant, thus enhancing its safe l operation. By integrating the management functions of the department, the department head is able to assume a more direct role in site operations, especially 4 those activities that provide support to plant operations. This also enables the Plant General Manager to concentrate more attention on day-to-day plant i operation and plant performance. There are some differences among the management organizations of the three nuclear projects which reflect the significant activities currently underway at each of them (i.e., maintenance
outages, major modification work, and plant startup and testing). Nevertheless, their structures are substantially similar and they are all alike in that clear lines of authority, responsibility, and communications have been established.
Today, CP&L's nuclear power organization can best be characterized as one of specialization, separation, and consolidattorn specialization, because the skills required to manage a nuclear program have become increasingly different from the skills required to manage other conventional generation technology; separation, because we have seen that the pace and the frequency at which decisions must be made require a different set of guidelines and procedures than are sufficient for other parts of our business; and finally, consolidation, because we have recognized an increasing need to pull together under a single senior manager the various organizations involved in our nuclear program.
The current structure of CP&L's nuclear organization reflects, in part, the knowledge of what is required for the safe and efficient operation of a nuclear plant which we have gained through our 25 years of expe.'lence in the industry. It is also a response to the numerous regulatory requirements and complex technical issues which have been facing CP&L, and the industry generally, in increasing numbers in recent years, especially since the Three Mile Island incident.
As CP&L has assumed increasing responsibility for the engineering and construction work at its nuclear projects over the years, our staff has also L
expanded. Due in large part to increased regulatory requirements, our modification and retrofit program has been extensive, and much of the growth in our organization has been due to this work. As an organization grows in size, it is not uncommon that a need to redefine its structure to accommodate the growth will arise. Such has been the case in CP&L's nuclear program.
i
The objective of any organizational change is to improve the effectiveness of the overall organization. We believe that the changes we have made in our nuclear organization enhance the safety of our plants and improve their operating performance. For example, we have recognized, and management theoreticians have stated, that the greater the rate of change and level of complexity experienced by an organization, the greater the need for autonomy of its managers and for rapid decision-making. By placing the Nuclear Project Managers at the plant sites and by giving them full responsibility over all on-site line functions, we have established an organization that provides the Project Managers with sufficient autonomy to enable them to conduct plant activities more efficiently and safely.
Where a nuclear plant is concerned, however, complete autonomy is not permissible and it is not desirable. We, therefore, have our independent oversight groups, such as Corporate Quality Assurance and Corporate Nuclear Safety, which scrutinize the activities at our nuclear plants and assure that our quality and safety programs are twing implemented and are operating effectively.
Q9. Mr. Utley, how do you, as Executive Vice President-Power Supply, Engineering &
Construction, stay aware of the activities at CP&L's nuclear plants and how do you satisfy yourself that those activities are performed properly in accordance with NRC regulations and CP&L policies and procedures?
A9. There are many ways in which I try to satisfy myself that we are performing our responsibilities in accordance with NRC regulations and CP&L policies and
, procedures. I conduct nine of our monthly nuclear project senior management meetings at the nuclear sites. These meetings are attended by the senior managers of all three nuclear plants, and we discuss a wide range of relevant issues. These meetings are very valuable in that they provide an opportunity for the project managers to share with each other and with me information about their plants so
that all three projects can benefit from the experience of the others. The managers of NELD, Corporate Nuclear Safety and Research and Corporate QA also attend these meetings, and they discuss safety, quality and regulatory performance issues with us.
I make frequent visits to our three nuclear plant sites. My visits include plant tours to view the construction and startup activities at the Harris plant and I also attend Harris staff presentations on topics such as security, training, and procedure preparation. My visits to the Robinson and Brunswick projects include plant tours as well as presentations on plant conditions. I am also in almost daily contact with the Brunswick senior management, and I discuss plant conditions with the Robinson senior management several times a week.
To ensure that our plants are meeting regulatory commitments, I maintain frequent contact with the management of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff. I also am in frequent communication with representatives of INPO. I am the Company's official representative to INPO, and I am Chairman of the INPO Evaluation & Assistance Division -Industry Review Group (IRG), which meets three times a yeer. I have been a member of tHs Committee since its formation in 1979, and I have been its chairman since January 1981. The IRG provides management oversight of the INPO evaluations of nuclear plants. As part of this effort, members take turns participating in plant evaluations. My participation in this Committee's work not only provides me with the opportunity to get an inside look at how other companies are operating their plants, but it also provides me an
- opportunity to meet with my peers and exchange with them ideas on establishing excellence in plant operations. Through this first-hand experience,I am in a better position to compare our performance with that of others and to direct our activities in a manner that allows us to benefit from the good practices and experiences of other utilities.
's I routinely review incoming and outgoing NRC correspondence for all three nuclear plants. I also receive various formal reports, including quality assurance repo-tr, wh!ch keep me abreast of plant conditions.
It is the obligation of every CP&L employee, and particularly of every CP&L manager, to ensure that work is performed in accordance with applicable regulations, policies and procedures. We have worked very hard over the past two years to improve the discipline of our operations which entails, among other things, that an Individual assure himself that he is using the right procedure and that he follows that procedure precisely. Personnel are held individually accountable for ensuring that procedures are followed accurately and are subject to disciplinary action for not doing so.
Ensuring that this commitment to discipline in operations is well understood throughout the organization requires the personal dedication and involvement of all of CP&L's senior managers. We are involved, and we strive to communicate this message at every possible opportunity. We have tried to establish, from the top down, a commitment to the types of programs and work habits that will result in individuals performing their tasks in compliance with all applicable regulations, policies and procedures. Through our training programs and our communications with personnel, we attempt to establish an environment that fosters a commitment to compliance. Through reporting and analysis we identify areas where compliance has not been achieved. When we find such an area, we undertake whatever measures are necessary in an effort to ensure that the particular organization takes appropriate remedial actions.
Q10. Mr. McDuffie, how do you, as Senior Vice President - Nuclear Generation Group stay aware of the activities at CP&I/s nuclear plants for which you are responsible and how do you satisfy yourself that those activities are performed properly in accordance with NRC regulations and CP&L policies and procedures?
- L A10. CP&Us senior management is committed to conducting our nuclear operations in the safest, most efficient manner possible. For this to be achieved,I, as a member of senior management, must demonstrate my personal commitment and instill the same sense of commitment through alllevels of personnel working under my management.
When the Company reorganized in August 1983, I shared with my managers several standards of conduct which I expected us to meet in our daily activities:
(1) Everyone should make every effort to do his job right and to do it right the first time.
(2) Procedures, schedules, specifications, &awings, manuals, and operating instructions are to be followed verbatim.
(3) Accountability for tasks should be established and clearly assigned.
(4) Parameters of quality, cost and schedules should be met.
(5) Operations should be evaluated thoroughly. Problems should be traced to their root causes so that we can address them rather than merely their symptoms.
(6) Finally, managers should try to develop organizations that work well internally and communicate well with each other, with CP&Us oversight organizations, and with the NRC.
There are many ways in which I personally stay aware of activities at the nuclear projects and attempt to satisfy myself that we are performing those activities properly.
I like to observe, first hand, the construction and engineering work going on at the Harris site so I generally tour the project at least once a week. Sometimes I do this when I'm at the site for a meeting. Sometimes, I go to the site on weekends. I also try to tour the Robinson project when I am at the site for a meeting.
i I
l
\
In addition to my personal observations of site activities, I have frequent i meetings and communications with my managers. I often attend the dally morning <
meeting at Harris, for example. I attend, as a rule, the monthly project review meetings at Harris and Robinson as well as the monthly nuclear senior management meetings. I also attend some of the monthly Brunswick Project Review meetings.
Harris executive review meetings are held three or four times a year and I try to i attend each of those. Finally,I hold a weekly staff meeting for managers located in the corporate office. The Manager of the Corporate QA Department routinely ,
attends these meetings. Project Managers attend those meetings on the third l Monday of each month.
, Beyond formal meetings, I have numerous informal communications with tha Project Managers and the other group managers. They can, and do, call me throughout the work day, and at my home if necessary, to discuss Project activities. Finally, I have frequent communications with NRC staff management and representatives of INPO. These discussions provide me with valuable insight into our own operations.
Q11. Dr. Elleman, please discuss the organizational structure of the Corporate Nuclear Safety & Research (CNS&R) Department.
All. The Corporate Nuclear Safety and Research (CNS&R) Department is composed of the Corporate Nuclear Safety Section (CNS), the Research Section, and the Corporate Health Physics Section. CNS includes the Nuclear Safety Review Unit (NSR) located at the central offlee and an On-site Nuclear Safety Unit (ONS) at each of the three nuclear projects. This organization is shown in Utleyg al Attachment 3. CNS includes 41 employees who work in Raleigh in NSR or at one of our plant sites in ONS. CNS employs experienced engineers who evaluate challenges to safety systems, review and analyze operations personnel actions
. _ - .- . - - _- ~ _ - - _ - - - _
. 1 following plant scrams, conduct field surveillances of plant operations, review operating experience at other nuclear plants for the purpose of developing recommendations for our own activities, initiate special investigations or j evaluations of events having possible safety significance at our quelear plants, conduct independent reviews of plant documents, perform plant system
, assessments, perform thermal hydraulic s.nalyses of plant transients of interests, and review selected plant procedures and modifications. f The NSR Unit is responsible for the independent review program as well as for providing general evaluation of safety related systems. The NSR indepen<.ent ,
review activity encompasses review of the following items: (1) procedure and plant t design changes meeting 10 C.F.R. 5 50.59 review criteria; (2) licensing actions; (3) tests or experiments not described in the facility's FSAR; (4) plant operational occurrences (LERs); (5) NRC notices of violations; (6) Technical Specification changes (7) Plant Nuclear Safety Committee (PNSC) meeting minutes; and (8) any l other item relative to safe operations deemed appropriate for review.
Another major responsibility of the NSR Unit is the evaluation of plant safety-related systems to assesh whether they perform safely in accordance with l design criteria. This activity is carried out by gathering data generated by tests, modifications, and repairs of the system; conducting interviews with operators; and reviewing performance summaries. The NSR Unit issues reports providing nuclear {
operations personnel with an outline of the evaluation, conclusions, and any appropriate recommendations and/or concerns.
The NSR Unit also monitors unresolved safety issues and is developing capabilities in the area of transient analysis. The main thrust of these programs is to enable NSR to function as the primary technical contact on key generic issues affecting CP&L nuclear plant operations and to gain the ability in-house to thoroughly evaluate and resolve issues insofar as practicable.
---~,-.-w,s.n . , _ . . , _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I We have eleven employees in ONS at Brunswick, seven at Robinson, and six at Harris. The individuals in these Units fulfill the function of an Independent Safety Engineering Group, as defined by the NRC in NUREG 0737 and in NUREO 0800, the Standard Review Plan, Rev. 2, July 1981. These Units have a relatively high degree of flexibility in carrying out their tasks, which include administering an operating experience feedback program, reviewing selected procedures and modifications, evaluating transients and safety system challenges, directly observing plant activities, and conducting special reviews.
When CNS engineers discern problems, generally they are resolved through direct communication with appropriate members of the plant staff. If such efforts are not succest! d and it is determined that further action is required to enhance plant safety, a formal concern or recommendation is lasued. Formal correspondence describing the concern or recommendation is initiated and sent to the appropriate department manager in the nuclear operations organization for resolution. Target dates for resolution and final corrective action are established consistent with the safety implications of the problem. If the problem is of immediate safety concern, the concern is orally communicated to the Plant General Manager and respective department manager for prompt resolution.
The Research Section monitors, evaluates, and conducts research and development projects related to the electric utility industry. The Section follows and provides support to research projects conducted by the North Carolina Alternative Energy Research Corporation and area universities. The Section also conducts selected research projects which can be more effectively carried out in-house.
The Corporate Health Physles Section staff reviews the health physics practices at our plants; conducts assessments of our health physics programs;
+
assesses the current status of health physles technology to make sure that we are ;
using current meth2; and reviews what other utilities are doing in thin area. In general, their function is to make sure that we comply with regulatory requirements in the health physics area, and that we use proper health physics practices.
The individuals in these sections report through their respective managers to I me, and I, in turn, report directly to Mr. Utley. I keep Mr. Utley aware of {
s significant events. In the event a section experiences difficulties in resolving a i problem, the matter can be brought to Mr. Utley for his personal consideration.
Q12. Dr. Elleman, please describe some of the other specific mechanisms that have been established within CP&L to implement CP&L's commitment to nuclear safety.
A 12. Safe operation of our nuclear facilities is the primary responsibility of the plant operations staff. Several review and oversight organisations have been established to ensure that this responsibility is met. The Plant Nuclear Safety Committee (PNSC) at each of our operating nuclear plants consists of the Plant General Manager and those subordinate managers whose job requirements relate to !
safe operation. The PNSC reviews plant events and operational incidents of apparent safety signifloanee for the purpose of ensuring that plant actions are appropriate. PNSC actions and reviews are documented in minutes whleh are distributed to key personnel having responsibility for nuclear safety. For Robinson, for example, the PNSC minutes are distributed to the Manager of the CNS Section and to Mr. Beatty, the Manager of the Robinson Nuclear Project Department.
In addition, a Corporate Nuclear Safety Review Board meets quarterly to f review nuclear safety issues of potential importance to CP&L. I serve as chairman of this Board which also includes an outside consultant and representatives from Plant Operations, Engineering, CQA, Lleensing, and CNS&R. Corporate Nuclear i
22 -
I .t
- c Safety Review Board deelsions are implemented through actions of the j I
organisations represented on the Board.
To answe that the safety-related programs of CP&L are functioning properly, senior management employs a nwnber of review and monitoring techniques. Senior {
r management offleers hold monthly review meetings concerning each nuclear plant l f
during whleh they receive an update on plant problems, secomplishments, and !
i priorities. Reports from CQA and CNS&R are transmitted regularly to senior !
i management and discussed personally with appropriate individuals. As the Vloe j President for Corporate Nuclear Safety and Researoh, I meet periodically with [
various individuals at our nuclear plants to ascertain their perception of plant operations and problems. I also meet on a regular basis with Mr. Smith and the j Board of Directors to review nuolear safety issues. A variety of reports that identify trends important to safety are regularly prepared by plant staff and are given broad distribution to appropriate management personnel. These reports l' include data on CP&L lleensee event reports (LgRs), personnel contaminations, [
radiation exposures, NRC notloes of violations, waste volumes generated, i i
measures of plant chemistry, and other measures of 'he safety performances at our t
plants. This body of Information helpe management to evaluate trends in radiation i
control and safety performance. 7 Q13. Dr. Elleman, please describe CP&L's ALARA Program.
A 13. The Corporate Health Physics Policy requires that the Company develop, ;
Implement, and maintain sound health physlos programs at CP&L foollities where j radiation-producing equipment and/or radionotive materials are used or stored.
These programs are structured to ensure that the exposure to radiation of CP&L !
I personnel, contractor personnel and the general public Will be maintained at levels whleh are as low as reasonably aehlevable (ALARA). ;
l I
i
l l
, l l'
, I
! Some of the major facets of the programs ares (1) the estabushment of l l l l ALARA goals, plans, iw-:::Me, and methods; (2) the review of the design of j faentties and equipment that can affect potential radiation exposuress (3) the j identifloation of locations, operations, and conditions that have the potential for l causing significant exposuress (4) the coordination of preplanning and post- :
operational debriefings for jobs having potentiauy high exposwes; (6) the review of assoaisted F-:::te; (6) the periodio review of results of ALARA programsg (7) ;
the development of recommendations for improvements;(8) the conduet of training in ALARA conoopts; and (9) the couestion, maintenance, and analysis of personnel j exposure data.
The Corporate Health Physics section staff reviews the ALARA programs j annusuy to answe they are effective in minimising exposwe to radiation, and i t makes recommendations for program improvements. The Section also provides !
~
assistance in development of ALARA training programs, counsoung on good healtli physics practices, and other support servlees.
t Ql4. Mr. Banks, please describe the organisation and responsibilities of CP&L's t
l Corporate Quauty Assurance Department.
l l A 14. CP&L's Corporate Qunuty Asswanee (CQA) Department is responsible for ;
providing qusMtp assuranee (QA) and qusMty sontrol (QC) for CP&L's nuolent ;
s o
activities, including engineering, construetion, and operations. The objective of the CQA Department is to provide an effective QA/qc program that wiu enswo safe, effielent, and reliable power plant engineering, construction and operation and that (
wiu meet au regulatory requirements. In addition, the CQA Department is -,
I responsible for QA audit funetions. This Department was formed in early 1981 to !
i t
provide more effielent and offsetive QA/QC within CP&L by consolidsting the i I QA/QC funettons that had previously been performed by three separate j t
l I
i i
l departments in the Company. The Department is currently staffed with 283 I i
people, including lie professional employees. Each nuclear pknt has an on-site QA/QC staff to direct QA/QC activities for engineering, construction and l
operations. ;
! r l As manager of the CQA Department, I report directly to Mr. Utley. This !
l i orgenlaational relationship provides the Indogxf- .es necessary to guarantee that queMty assurance decisions are made free of oost and schedule considerations. We have established three primary sections within my Departments the QA/QC l Brunswlok and Robinson Plants beetion, the QA/QC Harris Plant Section and the ,
t queuty Assurance Servloes Section. A chart of the Department is shown on Utley ngig, Attachment 4.
Q15. Mr. Banks, please describe the organisation and responsibilities of the QA/QC
! Brunswick and Robinson Plants Section and how they relate to the programs for quaMty assuranee and quality control at the Harris plant.
All. The QA/QC Brunswlek and Robinson Plants Section is responsible for assuring -
proper appuestion of quality standards, praetless, and procedures assoelated with -
the operation, maintenance, or modifloations at CP&l/s presently operating nuolear plants. We antielpete that the operations QA/QC program whleh we implement at the Harris plant wiu be substantlauy simuar to the programs in place at Brunswlok and Robinson.
The Manager of this Section is located in the corporate offlee with a Director j of QA/QC located at each plant. The Director - QA/QC Brunswlok Plant and the !
Director - QA/QC Robinson Plant and their respective staffs are responsible for '
oonducting on-site QA/QC netivities in neoordance with the Corporate QA Program and QA/QC procedures.
t I
- is -
l f
The QA/QC program for our operating plants covers many facets of the plant's operations, maintenance, environmental and radiation control activities, as well as modification activities. Among the activities that are performed under these QA/QC programs are the following: (a) reporting quality-related problems for correction; (b) stopping msintenance or modification work that does not meet requirements; (c) reviewing plant modification and maintenance documents, the Plant _ Operating Manual, and other plant procedures and instructions to assure that quality requirements are adequately prescribed; (d) ensuring holdpoints have been inserted in work control documents; (e) conducting inspections and witness points for maintenance and modification of the plant; (f) verifying acceptability of items and conditions by means of inspections, examinations, or tests; (g) providing guidance or check lists for accumulation of documentary evidence of quality and other QA records for retention; (h) coordinating and conducting surveillance of on-going plant activities, reporting results to the appropriate plant supervision and following up to assure that timely corrective action is taken, when appropriate; (i) providing procedures or instructions necessary for the accomplishment of QA/QC activities; (j) reviewing purchase requisitions and ensuring that QA/QC requirements are specified, except when reviewed by Quality Assurance Services; (k) reviewing contracts to ensure inclusion of necessary QA/QC requirements; (1) reviewing site-generated design specifications and procurement documents to ensure inclusion of QA/QC requirements; and (m) reviewing the Corporate QA program and proposing revisions, as appropriate.
Q16. Mr. Banks, describe your Quality Assurance Services Section's organization and its responsibility.
A 16. The Quality Assurance Services Section, which is located in the corporate general office, provides QA engineering support activities for the Department, C
~ nw w -- -
, _ _ . , ,_.awmn,+-.,, ,n_., - _ _ _ ,
,,,,.,.__,+.,_,,,4 _ , _ , , , _ , _ , , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _
conducts vendor surveillances and qualification activities, conducts an independent corporate audit program, and implements a training program designed to qualify QA/QC personnel for maximum interchangeability among various QA/QC l activities. This Section assures proper application of quality standards, practices, and procedures during engineering, construction, operation and modification of CP&L's nuclear plants.
Q17. Mr. Banks, since the formation of your Department in early 1981, what further actions has CP&L taken to enhance the overall effectiveness of its QA program?
A 17. One important action was the retention of Management Analysis Company (MAC) in August 1982, to help identify opportunities for improvement. MAC made 167 recommendations to us,164 of which we adopted. We have completed implementation of all but 6 of those recommendations. In addition, we have made other changes based upon our own analysis of our needs. By doing so we have substantially improved our QA/QC program.
- For example, QA engineers have been assigned to the three plant sites to provide additional technical expertise and to enhance communications with the plant staffs. Various functions such as vendor surveillance, QA auditing, QA
, training, administrative support, and QA engineering have been consolidated under the QA Services Section. The on-site QA surveillance program has been strengthened by placing more emphasis on plant operations, health physics, j security, and special evaluations requested by the Project Managers and Plant General Managers. At both of the operating plants, on-site QA/QC monitors and verifies changes to the Technical Specifications. A videotape on quality performance for use in the General Employee Training Program has been developed and is in use. The QA Services Section has had additional engineers and specialists assigned to its organization, thereby increasing the Section's capability to support the nuclear plants.
- m..g._ , , . , _ , . . _ , . _ , ,.y.__.,_,mm. _ . , , . , y., y,,,,__m._,,.,_,,,,m__ ..,,..,m,,_.,_...,e.. . ., .
.. ..m.
Q18. Mr. Banks, please briefly summarize CP&L management's position on que'ity assurance.
A 18. I, as Manager - Corporate Quality Assurance Department, am responsible for the implementation of the approved Corporate QA Program. In that respect, QA and QC activities are independent from scheduling and production commitments.
The managers of QA'/QC activities under me have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and to verify implementation of solutions.
I report directly to Mr. Utley. I also have the authority to communicate directly with other corporate management up to and including the Chairman / President / Chief Executive Officer and, if appropriate, with the Board of Directors to resolve any quality assurance concerns which cannot be resolved satisfactorily at a lower management level. CP&L management has made substantial efforts to instill in our personnel a commitment to the philosophy of Quality Assurance. We want all individuals on the CP&L team, whether they be craftsmen, operators, engineers, managers or QA personnel, to understand that quality assurance is each individaal's responsibility and that the Quality Assurance program is designed to help every individual achieve his maximum level of effectiveness and thereby meet our goals of safety, reliability and economy. '
Q19. Mr. Utley, in your opinion, are the organizations and programs at CP&L, including those which have been described thus far, adequate to translate CP&L's corporate l
1
( commitment to nuclear safety into safe operations at its nuclear plants?
A 19. Yes. Moreover, the recent management reorganizations that placed senior managers at our nuclear plants will make it easier to integrate assistance of all site support groups when problems arise and to improve further the flow of information between management and operations personnel.
i l
~ . , . - - - - . , , . . - . _ _ - .-_ - _ _ , - . . , -.
Q20. How does CP&L respond to violations proposed by the NRC?
A20. The regulations of the NRC provide the framework within which a response to proposed violation should be structured. The licensee 13 required to acknowledge or deny the violation as proposed, explain the cause of a violation which is acknowledged, identify the actions that it intends to take to correct the violation and to prevent the recurrence of similar violations, and specify a date by which compliance will be achieved. The approach used by CP&L in developing our substantive responses is to seek the root cause of a violation and take corrective actions that will address the perceived cause, rather than merely the symptoms, of the violation. Where, for example, a violation relates to a deficiency in management control or training, the remedial actions proposed are likely to involve commitments to strengthen the relevant aspect of the management organization or training program. We use this approach in responding to violations of all severity levels. ,. # ,
~
In 1982, the NRC imposed a substantial civil penalty against CP&L for what it perceived as programmatic weaknesses that led to violations of Technical Specifications for missed surveillance testing at the Brunswick plant. Mr. Howe and Mr. Dietz will testify in detail about those events and the corrective actions we took in response. I would like to mention it here, however, because I believe it illustrates well the process I have just described.
The NRC and CP&L viewed the specific errors that occurred as evidence of programmatic dt:ficiencies in the management controls over the Brunswick plant.
CP&L, therefore, undertook a comprehensive program of actions designed to f
correct the immediate deficiencies, i.e., the symptoms, and to ensure that the programmatic weaknesses, i.e., the root causes of the violations, would be remedied.
The proposed CP&L actions for long-range improvement were ultimately formalized in the Brunswick Improvement Program, a copy of which was submitted to the NRC. On December 22, 1982 the NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement issued Confirmatory Order EA-82-106 requiring CP&L to implement the Brunswick Improvement Program. CP&L responded to the Confirmatory Order on January 10,1983 by providing the NRC with a schedule for implementation of each task identified in the Brunswick Improvement Program and by submitting copies of the outside consultants' studies performed in connection with this
. improvement effort. A formal corporate program has since been in place to ensure satisfactory completion and implementation of the items identified in the Brunswick Improvement Program.
An investigation was also carried out at Robinson and at Harris to ensure that similar problems did not exist at those facilities. We did not find any such problems. Nevertheless, we instituted a formal program of stricter management controls at Robinson similar to the Brunswick Improvement Program which we call the Robinson Long-Term Improvement Program. We submitted this Program,
' including a schedule for its implementation, to the NRC in March 1983. We have '
already implemented many of its provisions and are completing the rest. A similac program was also developed for Harris.
The Brunswick Improvement Program incorporates the recommendations of i g INPO resulting from a "special assistance visit" to CP&L in September 1982 during which activities at the Brunswick site and the corporate office were evaluated.
Also as part of the Brunswick Improvement Program, two studies were conducted by an independent consultant, Management Analysis Company (MAC).
[ One study reviewed outside demands on the plant staff and made recommendations L for reducing such demands in order to allow more attention by plant staff to 30 -
i' '
, , _ , . - ,~ , , _ . _ . - - . _ , . - . . . . _ _ _ . . . . - _ . _ _ . . _ . _ , . . _ . _ . . . _ _ - -
, O
- operations and maintenance. This study was conducted during the fall of 1982.
CP&L has either implemented or committed to implement many of MACS l 1
- recommendations. With respect to the remainder of the recommendations, we were satisfied, upon review of them, that their objectives were being met by programs already in place. ,
MAC also conducted a detailed review of the Corporate QA program as Mr.
Banks mentioned. This review encompassed the overall corporate program, as well implementation of that program at all three nuclear plant sites.
We made several organizational changes for the Brunswick plant to provide more direct management control over activities there and to enhance communications between management and the plant staff. The most significant of these was the assignment of Mr. Howe to the site as Project Manager in September 1982. The comprehensive actions undertaken in the Brunswick, Robinson, and Harris Improvement Programs reflect the corporate philosophy of taking all reasonable action to ensure that the root cause of a problem is identified and corrected.- The progress of the comprehensive self-appraisal, the implementation of improvements and the results of organizational changes have been monitored very closely by CP&L senior management.
Q21. Mr. Utley, what evidence is there that CP&L's methods of conducting its nuclear operations, including the remedial measures and organizational changes CP&L has instituted, are having positive results?
A21. I am confident that our nuclear operations will be even stronger as a result of the recent comprehensive improvement programs and organizational restructuring we have instituted. Many of these improvements are intangibles that cannot easily be measured quantitatively. An example is the significant improvement in the morale of personnel at the Brunswick plant which I can see. Moreover, as I stated,
one of the objectives of the improvement programs at our plants and our on-going consolidation of responsibility for nuclear operations is to achieve, in the long l term, significant improvements in the management and conduct of our nuclear program. For this reason, it is reasonable to expect, and I do expect, that many :
I positive results of our efforts of the past two years will become evident throughout l the years to come. Nevertheless, there are, today, tangible examples which taken together demonstrate the effectiveness of the manner in which we are conducting our nuclear program.
At the Brunswick plant, for example, there have been improvements in our operations which are indicative of the success of the various improvement programs that have been instituted there. The number of NRC notices of violation issued with respect to Brunswick has decreased. There also has been an overall reduction in the severity level of the violations that have occurred.
We have made a concerted effort to improve our program of training of our reactor operators at Brunswick. The success of these efforts is illustrated by the improved examination results achieved at Brunswick since January 1983.
We can also point to specific plant programs to illustrate improvements that have occurred at the plants. The NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report for the period of January 1,1982 through January 31, l'
1983, while critical of some aspects of CP&L's nuclear operations, did raise the rating of the health physics programs at both Robinson and Brunswick. The NRC evaluation of Robinson noted that " programmatic efforts to improve in the radiation protection area were evident in health physics controls." The report also noted an increased emphasis on preplanning training and the use of mock-ups. The l
Brunswick evaluation cited a successful ALARA program and identified improvements in the radiation protection program.
There is additional evidence of our management's commitment to building a quality program in health physics. The radiation exposure levels at Brunswick for a_ -
-iSB3~were imid about 30 percent below projected exposures and a similar reduction would have been obtained at Robinson if continued deteriorati ' of the steam generators and resulting inspections had not produced increases in radiation exposure. Tighter controls have produced a significant reduction in the number of personnel contamination events at both plants, and sorting of radioactive materials
- has produced a significant reduction in solid waste volume at Brunswick. Once the waste volumes associated with the steam generator replacement have been 4
accounted for, we are projecting radioactive waste volume reductions at that plant as well. A strong program of decontamination at both operating plants has reduced the size of radioactive contamination areas at both operating plants.
. There have been positive results of the reorganization at our Robinson and Harris sites. Our steam generator replacement project at Robinson is progressing well due in part to the planning program and due in part to the assignment of an individual with total site responsibility to the project. At our Harris site; the transition from the construction program into a startup program has been quite smooth because an individual is now on site with total responsibility for directing the efforts of construction, startup and plant operations.
An audit of CP&L's management capabilities commissioned by the North Carolina Utilities Commission was published in December 1982 by the management consulting firm of Cresap, McCormick and Paget, Inc. (Cresap). While Cresap made several recommendations to CP&L for improvement of its operations at the corpcrate office and at the nuclear plants, it also found that in many respects CP&L is one of the best managed companies that the firm had audited in the past several years.
1
\
l i
My visits to the plants and my participation in CP&L activities related to our ;
nuclear operations have convinced me that we are continually improving our
. capabilities to run our nuclear plants. We have experienced low personnel turnover rates for the last several years at Robinson and the turnover rate has substantially improved at Brunswick in the last two years. This has significantly increased our base of experienced personnel. Personnel additions from outside CP&L also have been helpful in increasing our experience base. Morale is high at our nuclear plants. We are increasingly relying on new technologies to monitor operations, planned outages, and commitments.
Q22. Mr. Utley, what in your opinion is the single niost important improvement in the way CP&L manages its nuclear program?
A22. In my opinion the most significant improvement is the consolidation of all activities at each nuclear plant under the direction of a senior manager who is located at the plant site. By organizing in this way, we have a single individual who is accountable for virtually everything that happens at his plant. This provides for
- better discipline over all aspects of plant operations and facilitates better .
establishment of priorities. Perhaps the greatest benefit of the structure is that 1
because our project managers are at their sites, they can see for themselves, first -
hand, what the conditions are when a problem arises; and they can react immediately. Moreover, because they have the authority to act for the Company, they can make prompt decisions on behalf of the Company. This greatly increases the time within which corrective actions can be decided upon and implemented.
\
h Q23. Mr. Utley, in your judgment, is CP&L's nuclear organization structured properly to manage effectively the operations of CP&L's nuclear facilities in a safe and prudent manner?
l' l
I l
' l
. . l A23. Given the managerial requirements associated with nuclear power today, I believe that CP&L has the right organization, both in terms of staffing and in terms of structure, to manage CP&L's nuclear facilities in a safe and prudent manner. We.will continually evaluate our organization and refine the structure further when it is appropriate to do so. Should circumstances in the industry, or for CP&L specifically, change significantly, we will certainly examine the question of whether our organization should change. If, for example, the amount of modifications necessary to be made substantially decreases, the current structure may no longer be necessary. The key is to be flexible and to remain capable of adapting to changing circumstances.
Q24. Does this conclude your testimony?
A24. Yes, it does.
1
CORPORATE NUCLEAR ORGANIZATION Board of Directors 1
Chairman / President i
Chief Executive Officer Sherwood H. Smith, Jr.
Executive Vice President E.E. Utley l
i Corporate Corporate Fossil i Quality Nuclear Nuclear Operations Generation Brunswick Safety & Generation Support Nuclear i Assurance & Power esear h M.A. McDuffie J.M. Davis Transmissions Pro W H.R. Banks p
- T.S. Elleman LW. Eury
} Robinson Harris 1
Nuclear Nuclear Project Project G.P. Beatty R.A. Watson I Utley et al. Attachment 1
l
- NUCLEAR GENERATION GROUP Nuclear
- Generation M.A. McDuffie Nuclear Staff l Support J.L Harness Harris Robinson Nuclear Nuclear Engineering &
i Nuclear Nuclear Engineering Plant Construction i Project Project & Licensing Construction Support Services R.A. Watson G.P. Beatty A.B. Cutter S.D. Smith W.V. Coley i
i I
)
1 1
l i
l Utley et al. Attachment 2 L ._
O e CORPORATE NUCLEAR SAFETY & - /
RESEARCH DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION President i
Chief Executive Officer
& Chairman l
I 1
Executive Vice President Power Supply & Engineering
& Construction Groups Vice President Corporate Nuclear Safety &
Reseerch Department f I
! Manager Manager Manager Corporate Nuclear Safety Research Section Corporate Health Physics Section Section l
Specialist l Corporate Nuclear Safety
! I I I l Director '" ' * " "
Nuclear Safety Review On-sHe Nuclear Safey On-she Nuckar Safey On-she Nuc! ear Safey l (BSEP) (HBR) i (SHNPP)
Utley et al. Attachment 3
C2RPORATE CEUALITY ABOURANCE ~
DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION ,
l President Chief Executive Officer
& Chairman Sherwood H. Smith, Jr.
Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering & Construction E.E. Utley i
Corporate Quality Assurance Department H.R. Banks Manager Administrative Office Services Assistant Unit Supervisor QA/QC QA/QC Assistant to Dept. Head A e ces tion Harris Plant Section BSEP&HBR Sectior- Special Projects Manager Manager Manager Utley et al. Attachment 4
t
.n_ s;CE g
pn ~
August 9,1984
$$*50 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'84 Agg ;3 ,;,, 4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD EU..;~rr
~< - . :1; -: rl;h.~
In the Matter of ) _
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
Unit 1) ; )
APPLICANTS' JOINT TESTIMONY OF PATRICK W. HOWE AND C. R. DIETZ ON JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION I (MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY) f l
l l
l l.
, , , . . , . . - . - - . , , , . _ . . . .%.. . _ - , _.,__-___r__ . ~ . .%,
i l'
JOINT, TESTIMONY OF PATRICK W. HOWE AND C.R. DIETZ Q1. Please state your name,. business address, and position of employment.
-A1. Howe:
My name is Patrick W. Howe. My business address is P.O. Box 10429, Southport, North Carolina. I am Vice
' President - Brunswick Nuclear Project with Carolina Power &
Light Company (CP&L).
Dietzi My name is C.R. Dietz. My business address is P.O. Box 10429, Southport, North Carolina. I am General Manager -
Brunswick Plant with CP&L.
Q2. Will you please describe your educational background and professional experience?
A2. Howe:
I graduated from The Citadel with a B.S. degree in chemistry in 1951. From September 1951 to February 1956, I held positions as Laboratory Supervisor with E.I. Dupont de, Nemours & Company,-Inc., at the Savannah River Plant in Aiken, South Carolina. From August 1957 to June 1966, I served as Department Head at the Lawrence Radiation Labo-ratory, University of California at Berkeley. In 1967 I accepted the position of Chief, Site Environmental and Radiation Safety Group - Division of Reactor Licensing, with the United States Atomic Energy Commission in h
i Washington, D.C. I served in this position until March 1971 when I joined CP&L as Manager of the Environmental and Technical Services Section. In February.1974 I assumed the position of Manager of the Licensing & Technological Services Section and in February 1975 I became Manager of CP&L's Special Services Department. In December 1976 I was named Vice President - Technical Services Department. I assumed my present position as Vice President - Brunswick Nuclear Project in September 1982.
Dietz:
I graduated from Montana Stats University in 1963 with i
a B.S. degree in chemical engineering. Following graduation I worked from 1963 to 1965 as a reactor engineer at the Phillips Petroleum Company Atomic Energy Division in Idaho Falls,; Idaho. In that position I was responsible for operations, refueling, and experimental test control at the Materials Testing Reactor. From 1965 to 1968, I held various positions at the Piqu'a Nuclear Power Plant in Ohio, including that of Assistant Plant Superintendent. I was a licensed Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) at that plant. From 1968 to early 1981, I was employed by the General Electric
' Company (GE) in a variety of positions , including Startup Engineer, Training Supervisor, Operations Superintendent, Operations Manager, and Manager of Operator Training. I worked at a number of project sites, including GE's Morris, Illinois facility, Nine Mile Point, Cooper and Brunswick.
2
- - - - .,,w_-- - - - - - - - - ---.-n- - -
,,,..e .,--- ,. , ---n.,-an,- n.,
5 I joined CP&L in 1981 as Plant General Manager of the Brunswick plant.
Q3. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A3. The purpose of our testimony is to describe the management and staffing of CP&L's Brunswick Nuclear Project Department. We will concentrate on those aspects of the organization and past experience at Brunswick that relate to CP&L's capability to operate the Brunswick plant safely, effic'iently, and in compliance with the regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Q4. What is the departmental mission of the Brunswick Nuclear Project Department?
A4. It is the mission of the Brunswick Nuclear Project Departnent to manage the operations, maintenance and modification of the Brunswick nuclear plant in such a manner as to promote its safe, reliable, and economic operation. We strive to perform chis mission in accord with regulatory requirements, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) performance criteria and good practices,
. and CP&L corporate requirements. In so doing, the Department coordinates activi. ties with all'of the other groups in Power Supply, Engineering & Construction (PSE&C) and assumes responsibility for the performance and control of the Brunswick Plant. The Department has a dual 3
~_ _.
o objective of achieving the highest standards of operating performance and ensuring the safe operation of the plant.
Q5. Please describe the structure of the organization of the Brunswick Nuclear Project Department.
AS. The Brunswick Nuclear Project Department is headed by a Project Vice President, located at the plant, who coordinates all site activities. The managers of each of the four major site sections report to the Project Vice Presi, dent. They are: the General Manager - Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Manager - Engineering & Construction:
Manager - Outages and Manager - Site Planning & Control.
A chart setting forth the current organization structure is Howe-Dietz Attachment 1.
In addition to these organizs.tions which report direct-ly to the Project Vice President, there are several other r organizations' that are represented on-site which are an integral part of the Brunswick project team. These are the on-site Corporate Nuclear Safety, Corporate Quality Assur-
- ance, Nuclear Training and Employee Relations units. These units work very closely with line organizations at the site to assist in ensuring the safety of our operations, the quality of our performance, the coordination of operator and craft training and the recruiting and retention of qualified staff personnel. The activities of the Corporate Nuclear Safety and the Corporate Quality Assurance units 4
.- -- .. ~ - - . _ . .. _ .. - - - -. .- - - . . . - .- -
4 are discussed in greater detail in the testimony of Messrs.
Utley, McDuffie, Elleman and Banks.
Q6. Mr. Howe, how has the current structure of the Brunswick management organization evolved?
A6. Mr. Utley, in his testimony, has reviewed the evolution of CP&L's management structure for itc nuclear plants. I uould like to emphasize a few aspects of that development.
In 1982, the Brunswick project was reorganized. I was assigbed to the site as Project Vice President. I report directly to Mr. Utley, the Executive Vice President - Power Supply, Engineering & Construction. In this role, I have authority and responsibility for all engineering, construction, operation and maintenance activities at the plant. This organizational structure provides greater management control of these activities, allowing greater ability to identify and resolve problems that may occur.
In early 1984, this structure was further-refined with
! the consolidation of several separate work functions into two new sections under my direction: the Outage Management i
Section and the Site Planning and Control Section. The
! primary objective of this reorganization was to enhance the safe operation of the plant through firmer management control. This reorganization also was a major step towards integrating the management functions of the department.
l l This action allows me as Project Vice President to be more involved in plant operations, including support activities, 5
and allows the General Manager to concentrate on the operation and maintenance of the generating units.
Q7. Mr. Howe, what are the responsibilities of the Sections which report to you?
A7. The Plant Management Section has the primary responsibility, through the five units of the section (Operations, Maintenance, Regulatory Compliance, Environ-mental and Radiation Control, and Technical and Administra-tive , Services), for the day-to-day management and control of the plant facility. The five units of this section are grouped under the Plant Manager to consolidate operations control. Through the activities of these units, and in coordination with the other sections and groups, the Plant General Manager manages the operation and maintenance of the equipment and facilities. Above all, the Plant Management Section is responsible at all times for the safe i operation and maintenance of the Brunswick facility.
j The Engineering and Construction (E&C) Section is responsible for providing technical services and support and management direction to accomplish engineering and construction projects for the Brunswick plant. The section i
works closely with other project organizations, particular-ly the site's Outage Management Section. E&C has
! first-line responsibility for carrying out the modification projects required for the plant. It does so through two l
units: Engineering and Construction.
6 l
The Outage Management Section is responsible for the planning, preparation and execution of major scheduled outages and for maintaining lists of projects ready for implementation in unexpected, forced outages. These activities require close coordination with the other on-site organizations as well as organizations headquar-tered in the corporate office. It is the responsibility of this Section to sustain a continual planning process for major outages and to respond during outages with the resources needed to conduct the outages in the most economical way, consistent with regulatory requirements.
The Site Planning and Control Section is responsible for monitoring and measuring the overall performance of the Brunswick project and for developing and providing systems, methods and capabilities to facilitate such monitoring.
These activities include coordination of long-range plan-ning and scheduling, budgeting, cost monitoring and report-ing, program planning, and industrial engineering.
QS. You have outlined your background and experience. Please describe the qualifications and experience of the other l Managers at Brunswick.
A8. The Manager - Engineering & Construction, Mr. T.H.
Wyllie, holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering, is i
a registered professional engineer, and has 35 years experience in power plant construction. During his career, i
he has had over 20 years of managerial and supervisory 7
experience.
Mr. Wyllie worked for Ebasco Services, Inc.
from 1948 through 1972 on a variety of fossil and nuclear power plant construction projects. He Joined CP&L in 1972 as Site Manager of the Harris construction site. In 1975 he was promoted to Manager - Nuclear Construction, and in 1981 became Manager - Engineering and Construction at the Brunswick and Robinson plants. In 1982, Mr. Wyllie moved to the Brunswick plant and assumed his current position.
The Manager - Outages, Mr. J.R. Holder, holds r. bache-lor's; degree in mathematics and physics and has ever 18 years experience in the nuclear industry. Mr. Holder was employed by CP&L from 1973 through 1976 and held various positions including the position of Superintendent of Startup and Test at the Brunswick plant. In this pos4. tion, Mr. Holder directed the original startup efforts.for Brunswick Unit 2. From 1976 through 1982, Mr. Holder was employed by Washington Public Power Supply System in Richland, Washington, where he served as Manager of Techni-cal Services in the operating organization. Mr. Holder returned to CP&L in 1982 as the Assistant to the Vice President of the Brunswick Nuclear Project.
The Manager - Site Platining and Control, Dr. G.J.
Oliver, holds a bachelor's degree in physics, master's degrees in nuclear physics and economics, and a doctorate in radiological hygiene. He is a licensed SRO and a Cer-tified Health Physicist. Prior to joining CP&L, Dr. Oliver was employed by North Carolina State University as a staff 8
I member in the Physics Department from 1970 to 1973. Dr.
Oliver joined CP&L in 1973 as a Health Physics Specialist and was promoted to Senior Specialist in 1975, Project Specialist in 1978, Manager - Environmental & Radiation Control for Brunswick in 1980, Assistant to the General Manager in 1983, and to his current position in 1984.
A table setting forth the qualifications and experience of the key individuals on the Brunswick Nuclear Project management team is Howe-Dietz Attachment 2.
1 Q9. You stated that the Plant Management Section is responsible at all times for the safe condition of the Brunswick facility. Please elaborate.
A9. The Plant General Manager has overall responsibility for the safe operation of the plant through the five units that report to him. All operation activities are subject to his control. The Plant General Manager has the authori-ty to stop work on any project or activity at the plant that is not properly controlled or managed and which threatens the safety of personnel or the safety of the plant.
Two of the units of the Plant Management Section are devoted entirely to safety related matters. They are the Regulatory Compliance Unit and the Environmental and Radiation Control Unit.
9 y m -. yy _ -
,n - -
-..,w go- . - 9, p_..g_ =7 7-.,, y. -_y,__,9- __ ., , , - - - - - ,, ..-31-.--
i The Regulatory Compliance Unit is responsible for assisting other plant organizations to ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements. The Unit's specific responsibilities include: (1) coordinating and monitoring site activities related to resolving NRC, Corporate Nuclear Safety, Qua.ity Assurance (QA) and INPO concerns (2) coordinating activities related to fulfilling commitments to the NRC: and (3) ensuring that accurate responses to NRC communications are submitted, that reportable occurrences I are d'etected and reported, and that documentation of regulatory compliance matters is maintained.
The Environmental and Radiation Control Unit is respon-sible for providing the environmental and radiation control necessary for the safe operation of the plant within plant Technical Specifications and applicable state and federal regulations. These responsibilities include planning,
)
organizing and directing the chemical control and environ-mental surveillance programs of the plant as well as providing the specialized technical support and surveil-lance required for the plant radiation control program.
These activities are directed at ensuring that there is no adverse impact on the health and welfare of the public or plant personnel as a result of plant operations, and ensuring that radiation exposure is controlled and maintained at as low as reasonably achievable levels (ALARA).
10
Q10. 'Mr. Howe, how do the various sections at Brunswick coordi-nate with each other?
A10. Effective communications are important to the safe and ,
efficient operation of the Brunswick project, not only on site, but between the project and corporate management.
~
In my' position as Vice President of the Brunswick Nuclear Proj ect , I represent corporate management at the site and-am the principal link between the~ plant management and the corporate office. I talk with Mr. Utley almost~ daily to f revieb with him the status of the plant and any significant !
problems that may require his attention. In addition, I participate in a monthly Nuclear Project senior management i meeting involving the other Nuclear Project Department managers and senior management personnel from the general office. These meetings provide me the opportunity to discuss first-hand with these management personnel the !
status of any support efforts that the Brunswick project may have requested. It also allows me to meet with other !
Nuclear Project managers to exchange information so that we can all improve our operations based on our common experience.
Since I assumed my position at Brunswick, I have placed significant emphasis on ensuring that adequate commu-nication and coordination are being achieved among the various organizations at the plant. I encourage a candid exchange of information in all of our communication.
i l
! 11 i
There are several regularly scheduled meetings conducted on-site. These meetings include a daily coordination meeting, conducted by the Plant General Manager, which I attend. All of the section managers on-site attend this meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to review plant status, events and/or trends of the past 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and review any action items that are necessary to ensure overall coordination of our work activities. During major plant outages, we also hold outage meetings on a daily' basis to review the status of outage activities and ensure proper coordination of outage activities. Monthly site management meetings are attended by all of the project managers, supervisors, foremen, other professional personnel and myself. Corporate Nuclear Safety, Corporate Quality Assurance, and nuclear training personnel also participate.
My management team and I recognize that planned meetings are only a tool for facilitating communications.
To be effective, communications must be a continuing day-by-day and moment-by-moment process. Therefore, my management team tries to promote communications on a continuing basis in an effort to ensure that all of the plant activities are carried out effectively with a high degree of team work and coordination.
In addition to formal meetings, therefore, other plant management personnel and I frequently tour the plant to observe plant conditions and work activities first-hand.
12
l Such tours include a required tour by the Shift Foreman on ;
each shift and a required weekly tour by the managers and unit directors. These tours provide an opportunity for ;
discussion with plant personnel from all levels of the organization and assist'in promoting a free exchange of ideas and concerns.
Q11. What is the philosophy of the conduct of operations at Brunswick?
All. A,t the Brunswick plant, we have a strong commitment to a rising standard of excellence in all aspects of our -
nuclear activities. We give all symptoms close scrutiny.
l We search for root caures to problems and take the neces-
- . sary management action to correct those root causes. We ;
try to promote effective communication and coordination across all lines and levels of responsibility, with plant i management encouraging and monitoring such communication
[ and coordination. We recognize the importance training plays in the successful operation of a nuclear power plants thus, we place emphasis on both technical and managerial training for our staff.
Perhaps most importantly, we are trying to encourage a .
personal commitment from each employee. We demand that '
people think, we demand attention to detail and we hcid -
people accountable. Our standards of performance are understood and appreciated throughout all levels of the 13
i organization. We will continue to strive to maintain a disciplined, professional and well-trained staff.
Q12. What has been the overall performance of the Brunswick plant since the reorganization of the Brunswick Nuclecc Project occurred?
A12. Due in part to the reorganization and, in part, to efforts which were initiated several years ago, the period since the beginning of 1983 has been one of significant improvement in the overall performance of the Brunswick plant. These improvements include reductions in the number of Licensee Event Reports (LERs) and NRC notices of violation issued, reductions in radioactive waste produced, reductions in radiation exposures of plant workers, improvement in plant systems and equipment, and overall improvement in employee morale.
We continue to maintain an excellent record in industrial safety as we have for many years. This year's (1984) accident statistics are some of the lowest in our history, with a frequency of 6.09 non-lost time accidents per million man-hours and no lost time accidents at Brunswick.
Q13. Prior to the reorganization, some problems had been experienced at the Brunswick plant. Please discuss these.
A13. At various times prior to the reorganization, problems
! were experienced in a number of areas, including staffing l
l 14
levels and personnel turnover, the number of LERs and NRC notices of violation issued, processing of radwaste, implementation of health physics programs, and performance of required surveillance testing.
Q14. Has CP&L taken appropriate corrective action to address these problems?
A14. Yes. We have had improvement efforts undcrway at Brunswick in a number of areas for several years. These include improvements in our staffing levels, health physics, maintenance and operations. We believe these improvement efforts have been successful-and have resulted in a significantly improved level of overall performance at the Brunswick plant.
Q15. What is the current staffing at Brunswick?
A15. The current authorized staffing level for the Brunswick plant is 1,230 personnel. Approximately 95 percent'of the authorized positions are now filled, and the Brunswick project is operating with essentially a full staff.
Q16. How does your current staffing level compare with histor-ical staffing levels for the Brunswick plant?
A16. The staffing levels at Brunswick have grown significantly since commercial operation of the plant. The growth of the operating staff is illustrative. In 1975, when the first of the two units achieved commercial 15
4^
l operation, the operating staff at the Brunswick plant consisted of approximately 187 people. By 1979, the operating staff had grown to 320. Growth since 1979 has been significant. This growth is illustrated by the table below, which sets forth the approximate size of the Brunswick plant operating staff at the middle of each year listed.
Brunswick Plant - Operations Staff Size Year Size
- 1980 400 1981 440 1982 600 1983 790 Q17. Have there been any periods in the past when the staffing levels at the Brunswick plant were not adequate?
A17. There has' been no time in the past when our staffing levels were not adequate to ensure ti.e safe operation of the facility. Looking at our past experience, however, we do recognize times when the work load at the plant, due to increasing regulatory requirements and our efforts to implement reliability improvement modifications, has been greater than our ability to accomplish that work in the i time frame that we would have considered most desirable.
l l We have taken action, however, to increase the staff and as l the "above. table illustrates we have been successful in recruiting the personnel we needed.
16 u
To some extent, staffing levels historically have also been affected by higher than desired turnover rates. . In recent years the turnover of personnel at the Brunswick plant has decreased significantly. For example, the turnover rate for the Department in 1983 was only 5.7 percent compared to 9.5 percent.in 1981. The reduction in the rate of turnover has been due to a number of factors, the most significant of which include improvements in our wage, salary and benefit structure and a higher degree of employee morale.
t Q18. Is the current staffing level adequate to ensure safe operations of the Brunswick facility?
i A18. Yes, it is. Our staffing level is adequate to ensure l that the plant-is operated and maintained safely, and to I
enable us to implement effectively the various regulatory and plant improvement modifications necessary to promote i
the continued safe and reliable operation of the plant.
l I
t Q19. What improvements have been made in the health physics program at the Brunswick plant?
A-19. As just discussed, staffing levels at Brunswick began to increase significantly after 1979. In late 1979 and l
L early 1980 we realized that our health physics program was not coping as well as we would have liked as we increased the number of personnel at the site. We realized that improvements were necessary.
l 17 l
k Our initial step was the establishment of the position of Manager of Environmental and Radiation Control (E&RC).
' This position was initially filled by Dr. G.J. Oliver, whose background (B.S. and M.S. degrees in physics, an M.S.
degree in economics, and a Ph.D. degree in radiological hygiene) and experience we have already discussed.
In December 1980, we instituted organizational changes in the health physics program. As part of these changes, the functions of health physics and chemistry were divided so th'ta personnel in each area could devote full-time attention to each of these specialities. We hired more health physics and chemistry technicians, and expanded the professional and supervisory health physics and chemistry staff. The net effect was approximately a 50 percent increase in the staff of this organization at the Brunswick
- plant.
We expanded and improved the training programs for health physics personnel and health physics training for all other employees. We also implemented a qualification card program for chemistry and health physics technicians in order to further ensure that these personnel were fully qualified to perform the duties to which they were as-signed.
As a result of-these-efforts, noteworthy improvements in health physics have been achieved. The effectiveness of these improvements were recognized in an NRC report 18
entitled " Health Physics Appraisal Program" (NUREG 0855).
- .This report, published in March 1982, was based upon results of the Power Reactor Health Physics Appraisal Program initiated by the NRC in 1980. As a part of this
' program, the NRC. analyzed radiation protection' programs at ,
48 ccamercial nuclear power plants. - The objectives of the
- program were: (a) to determine if the plants had adequate radiation protection programs; (b) to determine whether the 4 plants had incorporated the lessons learned regarding radia' tion protection from the Three Mile-Island accidenti-4 and (c) to identify generic radiation protection problems.
As part of the final report, the NRC identified what
- they considered to be examples of good programs in the i
i - areas reviewed. The Brunswick project was singled out'for
.its excellent performance in several areas, including personnel selection, qualification and training,-and exposure control.
Subsequent to implementation.of these programs, Dr.
Oliver was succeeded in the position of Manager-of E&RC by
[
I Mr. A.G. Cheatham. Mr. Cheatham joined CP&L in June 1982.
I Prior to that time, he had accumulated approximately 20 years industry experience in the area of health physics and radiation control. He served as a Radiological Control Supervisor with Morrison and Knudson Company, Inc.
Radiological Control Supervisor at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in Windsor, Connecticut and for four years prior to joining CP&L, he was the Radiological Services l
! 19
Supervisor at the Millstone Nuclear Power Station of Northeast Utilities.
Q20. Please discuss improvements in operations at the Brunswick plant.
A20. Since late 1979, we have made significant improvements in the operations area. Prior to that time, the operating shift consisted of one Shift Foreman responsible for the operation of both units and the radwaste system. This concept was changed in late 1979 when we revised the organization to provide a Shift Operating Supervisor and three Shift Foremen on each shift. The Shift Operating Supervisor had overall plant operations responsibility and
~
a Shift Foreman was assigned to each unit. The third Shift Foreman was respcnsible for operation of the radwaste system. This change allowed us to reduce the span-of-control of the Shift Foreman so that he could devote more attention to supervision and to on-the-job training of operators, and could maintain a better overview of all aspects of plant operations, such as equipment out of service and maintenance in progress.
In early.1981, we further modified the organization by establishing a separate group responsible for all radwaste operations. This change allowed the Shift Operating Supervisor to concentrate his full attention on operation of the units, and also resulted in improved supervision and control of radwaste system operations.
20 ;
During this time we continued to make concerted efforts l
to increase the staffing level and qualifications of our operators. We currently have a full operating staff and have implemented a sixth shift rotational concept for our operators.
Q21.- Please discuss the sixth shift rotational concept.
A21. Each operating shift at Brunswick consists of a Shift Operating Supervisor who is responsible for the operations of bogh units. Reporting to the Shift Operating Supervisor are two Shift Foremen, one responsible for each unit. The staff under each Shift Foreman consists of 1 Senior Control Operator, 1 Control Operator, 1 Senior Auxiliary Operator and 5 Auxiliary Operators. This arrangement provides a complement of 19 operating personnel on each shift. The Shift Operating Supervisor, Shift Foremen, and Senior
~
Control Operators are SRO licensed. The Control Operators are licensed Reactor Operators.
Four of the Shift Operating Crews work on three rotat-
! ing shifts to operate the plant, one crew is used as a relief shift for vacationing and sick operation personnel, l and the remaining crew is in training. Each shift periodically rotates to the relief or training shift. This l
concept provides ample opportunity for personnel to accomplish training and retraining without requiring other employees to incur excessive or unusual overtime.
! 21
~
In addition to the complement of operators discussed above, we also have on each shift at least two health physics technicians and at least one environmental and chemistry technician. As I previously indicated, radwaste system operations are staffed separately from the plant operating shift.
Q22. Please discuss improvements in training at the Brunswick plant.
A22. Operator training programs have been expanded to compensate for additional operating personnel and to enhance the training being provided to the existing staff.
Our operator training staff has doubled since 1980. All of the operator instructors hold SRO licenses and have been certified as instructors. Additional heat transfer and fluid flow training was added to our program in 1980. In 1982, we increased simulator training time for initial training by 100 percent and by 33 percent for retraining.
We also implemented a revised training program for auxiliary operators for classes which began in 1983.
Operator training and operator retraining have also been upgraded substantially by the use of our new training
. center which houses our plant specific simulator.
Installation of the simulator was completed in February 1984, and the simulator has been used extensively since that time in initial operator training, retraining, emergency procedure training, and systems training for 22
supervision and management. This simulator has received high marks from all the students, and we are very enthusiastic about its role in our future. In addition, we offer more training to maintenance, health physics and chemistry personnel.
Another training tool that has been effective is real time training (or on the job training) . We have developed the capacity to provide specific training to operation, maintenance and environmental ~and radiation control person-nel ih real time, that is, on the work shift or shortly following the shift. The type of information conveyed is relevant to the employee's work situation -- such as plant procedural changes, the results of an incident investigation, and industry events at another plant that our people should know about. Information of less icmediate significance is conveyed through off-shift training. -The. sixth shift concept, which allown for both a relief shift as well as a training shift, enhances our
, off-shift training program. The training shift is needed for annual retraining and real time training efforts.
Not only are our people trained in their areas of I
technical responsibility, but they also are trained to be knowledgeable of the other work going on in their work area so that they can be of assistance to their co-workers should the need arise. In the discussion above, we have highlighted some of the more significant aspects of 23
1 training at Brunswick. Other CP&L witnesses will address training in greater detail.
Q23. Have the training programs implemented at Brunswick been l effective?
A23. Yes. We have improved our performance in NRC license examinations and NRC requalification examinations administered since January 1983. Twelve of sixteen candidates for reactor operator examinations have passed and s'xteen i of twenty candidates for the senior reactor operator examination have passed. Brunswick reactor operators and senior reactor operators have successfully passed the NRC administered requalification examination.
The average scores have ranged from 80.79 to 88.3 for the different examinations.
Q24. What level of reductions have you achieved in radwaste generation?
A24. Our level of radwaste generation in 1983 was about half of what it was in-1980. This reduction is due to several 7
organizational, equipment, and administrative improvements that have been implemented during this time. For example, due to improvements in our organization and training, there is better planning and control of radwaste processing and radwaste inventories. Maintenance improvements have resulted in reductions in inleakage tc the radwaste systems. We have improved the radwaste processing system, i thereby improving its performance. Administrative changes 24
have. improved controls to prevent unnecessary materials from being taken into contaminated areas. Finally, improved planning of modifications and maintenance has minimized the amount of radwaste generated during such activities. These radwaste reductions are particularly significant-when you consider that they occurred during a period in which there was a high level of plant modification activity. I believe the level of radwaste reduction would have been significantly greater had this not been the case.
Q25. CP&L's failure in 1982 to comply with certain Technical Specifications resulted in a $600,000 fine by the NRC.
.What actions has CP&L taken to remedy this problem and to ensure it does not reoccur?
A25. In June 1982, CP&L discovered that a Technical
, Specification requirement relating to surveillance testing of a relay in Brunswick Unit 2's auxiliary power distribution system had not been implemented. The NRC determined that this error was the result of programmatic weaknesses in the management of the Brunswick plant. We were very concerned that the test had been omitted and about the finding of programmatic deficiencies.
Accordingly, we immediately established a team to review Technical Specification surveillance requirements in order to determine if there were any other required surveillances that had not been fully implemented. Our survey of the 25
. _ . - - . - - . - - --_.a.-_.-.. . _ _ _ _ . - . - _ . - - _ - - _ - _ . - -
entire Technical Specification requirements, consisting of some 2,000 separate surveillance tests, revealed three other surveillance requirements that had not been implemented. Upon testing, the affected systems were found to perform satisfactorily, so no compromise of public safety had occurred.
CP&L undertook a comprehensive program of actions designed to correct the immediate deficiencies and to ensure that the programmatic weaknesses would be remedied.
The p'roposed CP&L actions for long-range improvement were formalized in a document known as the Brunswick Improvement Program, which was submitted to the NRC. As stated in the testimony of Messrs. Utley, McDuffie, Elleman and Banks, the Brunswick Improvement Program became a formal commitment under Confirmatory Order EA-82-106. CP&L provided the NRC with a schedule for implementation of each task identified in the Brunswick Improvement Program and submitted copies of the outside consultants' studies performed in connection with this improvement effort. A formal corporate program was put in place to ensure satisfactory completion of the items identified in the-Brunswick Improvement Program. A conscientious effort has been made to complete the action items which comprise the Brunswick Improvement Program. The implementation of the
^ '
program has been completed, and the completion was recognized by the NRC in April 1984.
26 l'
Q26. What were the major objectives of the Brunswick Improvement Program?
A26. The Brunswick Improvement Program encompassed seven major objectives. They were:
(i) Ensure full and timely compliance with all surveillance requirements, regulatory commit-ments, and regulatory requirements.
(ii) Ensure that all necessary procedures (including those resulting from plant modifications and new I requirements) exist and are clear, unambiguous, precise, complete, and of high technical quali-ty.
(iii) Increase the frequency and scope of quality control surveillance and corporate auditing program activities.
(iv) Ensure that maintenance activities do not degrade.sn render inoperable any component, system, or instrument.
(v) Increase the proficiency of plant personnel by means of expanded training.
(vi) Utilize more effectively the technical expertise of the On-site Nuclear Safety and Corporate Nuclear Safety staff in enhancing the reliabil-ity of. plant operations.
(vii) Undertake actions to enhance a..d strengthen the mcnagement control and organizational discipline 27
necessary to provide for safe and reliable operation.
The Brunswick Improvement Program incorporated the rec-ommendations of INPO resulting from a "special assistance visit" to CP&L in September 1982 during which activities at the Brunswick site and the corporate office were evaluated.
Q27. You stated that there has been a reduction in the number of LERs and NRC violations issued for the Brunswick plant.
What reduction has been experienced?
A27. In 1983 Brunswick achieved-a 45 percent reduction in the number of LERs and a 38 percent reduction in the number of NRC notices of violation issued, as compared to 1982.
We believe this improvement is a direct result of several factors including better accountability within the Brunswick organization, the Brunswick Improvement Program, iciproved procedures resulting' from Brunswick's procedure upgrade program, increased emphasis on strict adherence to procedures, improvements in Brunswick's maintenance program, and better tracking of test requirements.
As of July 31, 1984, Brunswick had experienced five NRC violations, all Category V. There have been 21 LERs (based on revised NRC reporting requirements which became effective January 1, 1984) during this calendar year.
These figures reflect the continuing improvements at the j plant.
l' i
28 i
Please explain the reductions in radiation exposure to Q28.
plant personnel.
A28. The annual exposure per individual at Brunswick decreased by 38 percent from 1980 to 1983. Several factors were instrumental in achieving radiation exposure reductions. First, we began using a computerized radiation exposure record and tracking system which identified adverse exposure trends. We have added additional personnel devoted to the implementation of the plant's ALARA programs. We have enhanced review of design and construction plans prior to installation. Finally, we encouraged a commitment by all levels of site personnel, especially first-line supervision and management personnel, to ALARA goals. Management will undertake to maintain, and improve if possible, these levels.
Q29. Are improvements being made at Brunswick in management methods?
A29. Yes. We have made many improvements in management methods and we believe that rany of our techniques are changing for the better. We are, for example, in the process of developing a more structured long-range plan.
This will aid us in accomplishing our work, including work that is regulatory in nature, more efficiently. We have instituted the ARTEMIS Computer Based Project Management
. System, which we are using to plan, monitor, and analyze proj ects . This system has proven its worth in the most 29
recent Unit 2 condenser tube outage. The ability to control projects is a real . enhancement to safety. We have also developed probabilistic risk assessment capabilities to ascertain the need for modifications and to assess the extent to which proposed " upgrades" to plant systems are likely to enhance the safe operation of the plant. We have increased our use of industrial engineering methods such as work management, work force sampling and manpower and resource planning, and we are finding that these techn'iques are providing line management firmer control over their organizations. -
Q30. In summary, how would you characterize the organization at Brunswick? -
A30. The organization at Brunswick is an organization with a
. strong commitment-to excellence. The strength of this commitment is felt and appreciated throughout the orga-nization. It is the ' bility a to communicate this commitment effectively to the working levels that has resulted in-improved performance at Brunswick. The large and complex dual unit facility requires a large and technically qual-ified starr for efficient operation, maintenance, and control. A greater spirit of coordination and teamwork has been developed among the various support organizations at the site. This attitude is reinforced by a continuous emphasis on effective communication among all levels of the project team. In addition, a greater emphasis on technical 30
a and management skill development has strengthened the individual abilities of our team members. We exercise strong management control and discipline over the operation of our facilities. These management concepts have been effectively executed as evidenced by our improved perfor-mance in plant activities.
Q31. In your judgment, is the organization which you have described effective in managing the operation of the Brunswick plant in a safe and prudent manner?
A31. Yes. As evidenced by our improved performance record, our outstanding safety record, and the increased sense of pride among our employees, we believe that the management team at Brunswick is highly qualified and effective. .Due to management's commitment to continually improving all aspects of the plant's performance, everyone on the Brunswick team is working to make Brunswick the safest and most reliable plant possible. This kind of dedication and commitment on the part of the employees in our organization results in an operation that is efficient, safe and prudent.
t Q32. How do you personally ensure that your philosophy of managing the Brunswick plant is being carried out?
A32. Howe:
There are a number of techniques by which I ensure the philosophy of the Brunswick project management is being 31 ,
t
- - . . . . . - . ~ .- . - -
1 implemented. Among these are my attendance at the daily management meeting, personal contacts with a variety of plant personnel, tours of the plant, the Regulatory
- Compliance Unit's " Facility Automated Commitment Tracking
- System," review of the Shift Status Report, special i
presentations by plant personnel and management, review of INPO evaluations, review of QA and NRC audits and inspection reviews, discussions with NRC staff management, review of SALP reports, evaluation of the plant's achievements against corporate and departmental goals, and participation in a broad variety of technical meetings.
i In addition, there are various quantifiable indexes which I also use to measure our performance. Among these n are: Licensee Event Reports, NRC notices of violation per inspector hours, volume of radioactive waste generated, radiation exposure records, industrial safety records, outage schedule achievements and scores on training program exams. Each and all of these assist me in maintaining a continuous assessment of how well the management philosophy
, for-Brunswick is working. I am confident that the other managers of Brunswick and~I will remain sensitive to these ,
indicators of performance.
Dietz:
I utilize tt2 same techniques as Mr. Howe. I keep.
abreast of plant activities by regular contact with plant personnel, both through scheduled meetings and through more informal communications,.and by frequent tours.of the 32 i
plant. I have in the past, and will in the future, utilize QA to verify the implementation of procedures and programs we have initiated at the plant, i_ . e_ . to see that our programs are as we intend them to be. Finally, I carefully review analyses by outside organizations of our activities, e.g. INPO and the NRC, to assist me in evaluating our performance.
Q33. Does that conclude your testimony?
1 A33. Yes, it does.
f 1
33
O QRUNOWICK NUCLEAR PROJECT ORGANIZATION Vice President Brunswick Nuclear a
Project I
I I I I
! General Manager Manager Manager Manager
! Brunswick Steam Engineering & Outage Management
! Site Planning &
Electric Plant Construction Control Assistant to I General Manager I I Manager Project
{ g Mangr Resident Director Director
_ Construction Engineer Operation Planning & _ Integrated Planning, Scheduling Budgeting & Scheduling /
Long Range Planning I
Manager '"
Director Maintenance " ' "
i R Financial Planning
& Control Manager Director Director R ton C trol (U 1)
Op ne g
{ Manager Director Technical & -
Projects Project Engineer Administration -
(Unit #2) Industrial Engineering 4
1 l
Director l -
Regulatory Compliance i
Howe-Dietz Attachment 1
TOTAL YEARS BSEP CP&L EXPERIENCE NUCLEAR NAME TITLE DECREE e SRO BSEP OTHER TOTAL USN OTHER EXPERIENCE YES NO Howe Vice President. B.S. (Chem.). I 2 11 1/2 13 1/2 0 19 1/2' 33 Brunswick Nuclear Project Eictz Ceneral Manager - B.S. (ChE) X 4 0 4 0 17 21 Brunswick Plant Wyllie Manager - B.S. (ChE) X 2 10 12 0 5 .17 Engineering &
Ccastruction i
Halder Manager - B.S. (Math / Physics) X 4 1/2 1 1/2 6 0 13 19 l Outage Management Oliver Manager - Ph.D. (Env. Eng.) X 4 7 11 0 0 11 Site Planning &
Control l
l Tucker Assistant to the B.S. (EE) X 8 4 1/2 12 1/2 3 0 15 1/2 l General Manager l
1 Chase Manager - Operations B.A. (Pol. Sc.) X 2 0 2 7 10 19 Dinunette Manager - Maintenance B.S. (Physics) X 6 0 6 7 1/2 0 13 1/2 l
i Chectham Manager - X 2 0 2 0 20 22 Environmental &
Radiation Control :c E.
Hill Manager - Technical & B.S. (ME) X 4 0 4- 0 0 4 7 Administrative Support . 3 S'
Enzar Director - Regulatory B.S. (EE) I 12 0 12 0 4 16 Compliance ,
E
?r E
~
. . _ _ _ _ O
i I
TOTAL YEARS BSEP CP&L EXPERIENCE NUCLEAR NAME TITLE DECREE SRO BSEP OTHER TOTAL USN OTHER EXPERIENCE YES NO Groover Project Construction B.S. (EE) X 9 0 9 ,
0 0 9 Manager Peeler Director - Planning & X 10 1/2 0 10 1/2 6 1 1/2 18 Scheduling Coburn Director - Outage I 12 0 12 0 0 12 Documentstion &
Reporting Broen Director - Unit Outage B.S. (ME) X 10 1/2 0 10 1/2 0 9 19 1/2 Wagoner Director - IPBS Long B.S. (ME) X 10 3 13 0 0 13 Range Planning Szakenburg Director - Organiza- B.S. (IE) 1/2 0 1/2 0 0 1/2 tional Performance and Forecasting Lipman Director - B.S. (IE) X 3 0 3 0 0 3 Industrial Engineering Helme Director - Onsite M.S. (NE) X 2 6 1/2 8 1/2 Nuclear Safety Jones Director - QA/QC B.S. (Metal.E) X 1 1/2 11 12 1/2 0 5 17 1/2 Hegler Superintendent - X 10 1/2 0 10 1/2 7 0 17 1/2 Operations y Bichop Manager - Technical B.S. (NE) I 10 1/2 1 11 1/2 0 1/2 12 f, Support y G
Boyer Director. B.S. (EE) X 3 0 3 0 0 3 >
Administrative Support g if a
n PO
.. .. -- r c30'il!GE, 1 ptt15 ED O~~ " ' August 9,1984
' 7,Yc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA d4 ASO f 3 m; d NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD: l In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
Unit 1) )
APPLICANTS' JOINT TESTIMONY OF GUY P. BEA'ITY JR.
AND RICHARD E. MORGAN ON JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION I (MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY) i l
e
i t
JOINT TESTIMONY OF GUY P. BEATTY, JR. AND RICHARD E. MORGAN I -
Q1. Please state your full name, employer, position, and business address.
A1. Beatty:
My name is Guy P. Beatty, Jr. I am employed by Carolina Power & Light 4
Company (CP&L) as Manager of the Robinson Nuclear Project Department (RNPD). My business address is P. O. Box 790, Hartsville, South Carolina.
. Morgan:
My name is Richard E. Morgan. I am the General Manager-Robinson Plant in ,
l CP&L's Robinson Nuclear Project Department. My business addess is the same as t
. 1 2
I that of Mr. Beatty.
Q2. What is your professional training?
i A2. Beatty: ,
I graduated from Clemson University in 1958 with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. Since then, I have received considerable additional training including nuclear reactor safety and radiological health training in 4
courses taught by the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare and by ,
i the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I have completed the Westinghouse Reactor Operator Training Program and was licensed as a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) for H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2 (Robinson 2).
Morgans While serving in the United States Air Force for four years,I was trained as a Medical Services Specialist. This included training in radiological effects related to nuclear warfare and the assessment of medical x-rays. After joining
, CP&L,I participated in the Westinghouse Reactor Operator Training Program for initial startup of Robinsota 2 and was licensed as an SRO in 1970. This license was e e
_- - - . - _ = -. .__- - - . _ _ _
renewed by annual retraining and qualification through January 1978. I have also completed course work in economics at North Carolina State University and in electrical and electronics principles at Florence-Darlington Technical School.
Q3. - Please describe your professional experience.
A3. Beatty ,
With the exception of the ten-year period between 1972 and 1982, I have f spent my professional career with CP&L. After graduation from college, ! ,
I became a plant engineer at CP&L's coal-fired H. F. Lee Plant. I then became a plant engineer and subsequently plant maintenance supervisor at Unit 1 of the H.
B. Robinson Plant, which is also a coal-fired unit. Between 1964 and 1966, I was operation supervisor at the Lee plant. In February 1966, I returned to the l Robinson plant to become plant manager - a position I held until 1972. The nuclear-powered Unit 2 (Robinson 2), a 665 megawatt Westinghouse pressurized water reactor, was constructed on the same site during this time period and began commercial operation in March 1971. As plant manager,I was responsible for the continued operation of the coal-fired unit and for the preoperational testing, initial core loading, startup and initial commercial operation of Robinson 2.
In July 1972,I joined Florida Power Corporation as a nuclear staff engineer and was prin.arily involved in the preoperational tralaing and licensing for Crystal River Unit 3, an 855 megawatt pressurized water reactor. Ilater became general i plant manager of the Crystal River plant whleh includes both fossil and nuclear units. During the final construction and preoperational phase of Crystal River Unit 3, I was assistant project manager. Subsequently, during the preoperational testing, startup and commerelal operation phases,I became plant manager of Unit
- 3. I held this position between 1975 and 1979 when i became an assistant to the vice president for nuclear operations of Florios Power Corporation.
i I
i i
f
i I
In 1982, I was on loan from Florida Power Corporation to the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), an industry-sponsored organization dedicated to
' ensuring the safe and efficient operation of commerclai reactors. While at INPO, I i served as a member and later manager of INPO Evaluation Teams. My responsibuities included traveling to various nuclear plants to review whether their management was in compliance with the INPO Performance Objectives. The Evaluation Teams provided comments and reports to plant management detalling how their administration, maintenance and operations measure up to INPO f standards. Before leaving INPO, I was promoted to manager of the Technical ;
Support Section of INPO's Eysluation and Assistance Division.
I returned to CP&L in October 1982 as Manager of Special Projects with (
primary responsibility as Project Team Manager of the Robinson 2 steam generator replacement project. In August 1983, I was named Manager of the ;
Robinson Nuclear Project Department whleh is the position I currently hold. As Project Manager, I am the on-site manager who has overall responsibility for all aspects of plant operations including long range planning and policy-making.
Morsen:
Upon leaving the Air Force in 1962, my utility experience began as a trainee -
at CP&Us H. F. Lee Plant. As a trainee, helper and auxiliary operator at the Lee plant, ! learned basic maintenance and operations procedures for a fossil power ,
plant. After transferring to the Robinson plant in 1966, I worked as a control I operator, shift foreman, senior generation specialist and operating supervisor. In t
these pooltlons, I worked in the areas of equipment quellfication, lleensing and operations for both the fossil and nuclear units at Robinson. In January 1979, I transferred to the Harris plant as Superintendent-Startup and Test whleh is the position I held tmtli July 1980 when I became Manager - Plant Operations at the Brunswick plant. In August 1982, I was transferred back to the Harris plant as Manager - Plant Operations and held that position untill became General Manager of the Robinson plant in September 1983. As General Manager, I report to Mr.
Beatty, the Project Manager, and have day-to-day responsibility for operations and maintenance of both the nuclear and fossil unit. With respect to Robinson 2,I l
have direet responsibility for operations, maintenance, regulatory compliance, technical support, environmental protection, and ehemistry and radiation protection. In short, I am charged with the task of ensuring that the unit operates safely and reliably, in fuu compliance with applicable regulations and in accordance with Company objectives.
Q4. Mr. Beatty and Mr. Morgan, what is the purpose of your joint testimony?
f A4. The purpose of our testimony is to describe the on-site organisation, l
operating history, and enforcement record of Robinson 2. We win concentrate on
! those aspects of the organisation and past experience at Robinson 2 that relate to CP&!ls capability to operate the unit safely, effielently, and in compilance with
! the regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
QS. Please describe the overall on-site organlaation for the Robinson Nuclear Project Department.
A 3. Beatty:
The Robinson Nuclear Project Department (RNPD) was organised in September of 1983 to centralise all plant operating, construction, and engineering funettons at the site under one on-site Project Manager. Prior to that time, there was no position comparable to Project Manager and many polley-level decisions l had to be made at CP&l/s corporate offlee rather than the plant site. The reasons for the 1983 reorganisation are discussed in more detail in the testimony of E. E.
Utley, et al. In this proceeding. In addition to Mr. Morgan, the General Manager, 4
i
the on-site managers who report directly to me are J. J. Sheppard, Manager -
Planning and Scheduling; B. G. Rieck, Manager - Control and Administration; Matthew J. Reid, Manager - Project Construction; and the Manager - Design Engineering (a position which is presently vacant). The five sections headed by these managers together comprise RNPD. As Project Manager, I repcrt directly to M. A. McDuffle, Senior Vice President - Nuc' lear Generation Group. Beatty-Morgan Attachment 1 is a chart that illustrates the organization of RNPD.
This basic management organization is designed to establish a strong corporate presence at the Robinson site, while providing the on-site managers
-with the necessary freedom of action to be responsive to operational, regulatory and safety issues. In this respect, there are two distinct advantages of the current organization. First, the General Manager is able to concentrate on the safe, reliable operation of the plant. This has been accomplished by structuring the on-site organization such that functional groups not directly involved in the operation of the plant no longer report to the General Manager. Movement of the responsibility of those auxiliary functions (such as administration, cost control, and planning and scheduling) into the Project Manager's organization frees the General Manager and his operating staff to concentrate on plant performance.
Secondly, responsibility for all project functions (excluding the on-site training, quality assurance and on-site nuclear safety organizations) is now under the Project Manager. Thus, decision-making authority for most day-to-day issues is situated at the plant site rather than CP&L's corporate office. This has resulted in more efficient decision-making and a greater sense of direction.
Q6. What are the responsibilities of the on-site managers at Robinson 2?
A6. Beatty:
Mr. Morgan has already discussed his role as General Manager. I will discuss briefly the general responsibilities of each of the other managers who report to me and whose positions are identified in Beatty-Morgan Attachment 1.
The Manager - Project Construction is charged with managing the performance of major modifications and additions to the plant according to
. preplanned and approved schedules. This is, of course, a very important position at any nuclear plant.
The Manager - Control and Administration oversees financial planning and control, project administration, material receipt and handling, emergency preparedness, and project security. He supports the General Manager - Robinson Plant while freeing the General Manager of administrative. burdens which existed prior to the reorganization of RNPD.
As his title implies, the Manager - Planning and Scheduling plans and schedules outages and modification activities to ensure that resources are utilized efficiently and to minimize unit outage time. He is responsible for both short-range and long-range planning. During outages, he carefully follows and reports on work activities. In that way, the other Company managers and I are always aware of the status of outage-related. work at the plant so that planning for system-wide power needs can be accommodated.
Finally, the position of Manager - Design Engineering, which is currently unfilled,is responsible for the design of modifications and additions to the plant to ensure compliance with applicable engineering codes and regulatory
- j. requirements. That position would also assist in the preparation of work packages necessary to accomplish plant modifications and additions.
l l . Q7. Have there been other significant changes in this organization since Robinson 2 began commercial operation?
A7. Yes. Although the basic management structure of the Robinson plant has been maintained since commercial operation of Robinson 2 began in 1971, we have made a number of changes to reflect the demands of our increasingly complex industry. In addition to the 1983 reorganization discussed above, one notable change is the separation of managerial responsibilities for Unit 1 (the fossil unit) and Unit 2 (the nuclear unit) below the Plant General Manager level. This allows the managers of Robinson 2 to concentrate exclusively on that unit. The process of separating managerial responsibilities between the two units began in 1979 end was completely implemented by 1984. We have also made a number of changes to ensure that technical expertise is available to cope with changing conditions. For example, the position of Environmental and Radiation Control Supervisor (now 1
Environmental and Radiation Control Manager) was established in 1974 to reflect the importance of environmental protection, radiation protection,-and chemistry control.
Q8. How would you characterize the educational qualifications and experience of Robinson 2 personnel?
A8. We think the personnel at Robinson 2 are extremely well qualified. The education and experience level of key personnel are summarized in the chart l which is attached to this testimony as Beatty-Morgan Attachment 2.
l l All management / supervisory personnel, operational licensed personnel, technical and maintenance personnel, and quality assurance personnel must satisfy the requirements established by ANSI N18.1-1971. Because our personnel do meet this ANSI standard, there is added assurance that they have adequate qualifications to operate Robinson 2 safely and reliably. Finally, we should mention that Robinson 2 personnel are periodically retrained by CP&L in order to maintain and demonstrate their level of competence. CP&L's training program is L.
l l
described in detail in the joint testimony of James M. Davis, Jr. and A. Wayne Powell in this proceeding.
Q9. Can you describe the education,' training and experience of key plant personnelin ,
more detail?
A9. Matthew J. Reid, the Manager - Project Construction at the Robinson plant, has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Rhode Island and has more than 35 years of experience in the construction industry.
Upon joining CP&L in 1982, he was initially employed as Project Construction Manager (Robinson) in the Brunswick and Robinson Site Management Section of the Nuclear Plant Construction Department before being promoted to his current posizion.
The Manager - Control and Administration, B. G. Rieck, holds a bachelor's degree in chemistry and has over 25 years of administrative project management experience. A CP&L employee since 1982, he has been in his current position since January 1984.
James J. Sheppard has been the Manager - Planning & Scheduling since March 1984. Prior to that time, he was employed as Principal Engineer, Nuclear Licensing Unit, in CP&L's Nuclear Engineering & Licensing Department. He received a bachelor's degree in engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy in 1970 and a master's degree in business administration from Duke University in 1982.
He has 5 years of nuclear naval experience and has been employed with CP&L since January 1979.
In addition to these managers who report to the Project Manager, key personnel include the Manager - Operations and Maintenance, Manager - Technical Support and Manager - Environmental and Radiation Control (all of whom report to the Plant General Manager). At the supervisor level, key personnel are the Operating and Maintenance Supervisors for Unit 2.
~
C. Wayne Crawford, the Manager - Operations & Maintenance, graduated from North Carolina State University in 1969 with a bachelor of science degree in nuclear engineering. In March 1970, he joined the Robinson staff as an engineer in CP&L's Nuclear Operations Department. In 1971, he obtained'his SRO license at Robinson. Mr. Crawford subsequently became Administrative Supervisor and Maintenance Supervisor, remaining in the latter position until January 1979. He i
then became the Operating Supervisor. In November of that same yer, he became the Manager - Operations & Maintenance which is his current position.
All of Mr. Crawford's 14 years of nuclear experience have been acquired at Robinson.
Joseph M. Curley has been in the position of Manager - Technical Support since March 1981. Prior to that time, he was employed as the Engineering Supervisor in CP&L's Nuclear Operations Department. He received his bachelor of science degree in nuclear engineering from Texas A&M University in 1974 and has a total of 14-1/2 years of nuclear experience in the U. S. Navy and utility industry. He obtained his SRO in 1977 at Robinson.
Richard M. Smith, Environmental and Radiation Control Manager, assumed his position in July 1984. He retired from the U. S. Navy in 1975, having spent 10 years in the Army Package Power Program. He was a qualified operator of various Army nuclear plants under a joint military program and spent three years in Antarctica as tne Chemistry-Health Physics Supervisor for one such plant.
Upon retirement from the Navy, he became the Plant Health Physicist and later Radiation Protection Manager at VEPCO's Surry Nuclear Plant. While with INPO from 1981 to 1984, he evaluated over a score of nuclear plant health physics or chemistry programs.
Frederick L. Lowery, the Operating Supervisor - Unit 2, has been at the Robinson plant since May 1971, shortly after initial commercial operation of Robinson 2. He has 9 years of U. S. Navy experience (1961-1971) for a combined total nuclear experience of 22 years. He received his SRO license in 1975. Since that time, he has been employed as a senior control operator, shift foreman, training coordinator and operating supervisor.
William T. Gainey, Jr. and R. H. Chambers share the title of Maintenance Supervisor - Unit 2. Mr. Gainey is primarily responsible for mechanical maintenance while Mr. Chambers concentrates on instrumentation and electrical maintenance. Mr. Gainey began employment with CP&L in 1969 as a Control Operator at Robinson. In 1972 he obtained an SRO license and subsequently became Shift Foreman at Robinson 2. He worked as a Senior Quality Assurance Specialist in the Operations Quality Assurance Section, and as a Project Specialist
- Administration /Special Projects in the Nuclear Operations Department and Technical Services Department. He was transferred to Robinson in November of 1983 to become Maintenance Supervisor - Unit 2. Mr. Chambers holds a bachelor's degree in nuclear engineering. He has been at Robinson 2 since 1973 where he has held various engineering positions. He has been Maintenance Supervisor - Unit 2 l
since 1979.
Q10. What has been the experience regarding employee turnover at Robinson 2?
A10. In general, Robinson 2 has experienced a level of employee turnover well below the nuclear utility industry average. For those employees holding an SRO license, the average turnover rate at Robinson 2 for the period from 1978 through 1982 was less than 3 percent. The industry turnover rate was considerably
' higher. For example, the industry turnover rate for SROs during 1981 was 5.1 l
percent. The average turnover rate for licensed Reactor Operators (ROs) at L -
-~ - _. - - . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , . _ , _ _ _ _ __ _
Robinson was approximately 4 percent during the 1978-82 time period, while the industry average turnover rate during the same period was 5.5 percent. In 1983, these already low rates were further reduced to zero percent turnover for both SROs and ROs. The implementation of CP&L's Nuclear Supplement Pay Program, which establishes a salary differential for employees at nuclear plants, has helped to maintain low turnover rates. Even more importantly, that program has allowed Robinson 2 to attract and retain well qualified personnel, thus enabling us to maintain low turnover rates. .
Another indication of the low turnover at Robinson 2 is the number of on-site managers now at the plant who have worked there for a substantial period of time. .Both of us were employed at Robinson when construction of Unit 2 commenced in 1966. Other current managers or supervisors who were at Robinson 2 when it began commercial operation thirteen years ago are C. Wayne Crawford, William T. Gainey, Jr., and J. A. Eaddy, Jr. (Environmental and Chemistry Supervisor). In addition, management / supervisory personnel who have had more than eight years experience at Robinson are J. M. Curley, F. L. Lowery, R. II.
Chambers, H. S. Zimmerman (Director - Planning & Scheduling) and R. E. Denney (Radiation Control Supervisor). As we will discuss later, Robinson's low attrition i
level and high experience level were cited by INPO as a major strength on its most recent plant evaluation.
Q11. Please describe the current and historical staffing levels at Robinson.
All. It has always been the objective of CP&L to staff all of its generating units with adequate numbers of personnel to construct, operate and maintain the plants properly and safely. Personnel from off-site organizations within CP&L and outside contractors are used during peak work periods to supplement the permanent plant staff.
L
l There has been a steady growth in staffing levels for Robinson 2 as can be seen by reference to Beatty-Morgan Attachment 3. This increase reflects the commitment of CP&L to' maintain a staffing level sufficient to ensure safe operation of the plant in compliance with NRC requirements. More extensive NRC regulation has increased the workload for plant staffs throughout the nuclear industry, including Robinson 2. The increase in personnel has been especially marked since the accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant in 1979. Between J
1972 and 1978, the Robinson 2 staff increased by 54 persons-from 80 to 134.
Since 1979, the staff has increased by an additional 134 persons to the present complement of 268. As a typical example, the Environment and Radiation Control section at Robinson 2 numbered fewer than 10 persons in 1975, but now has a personnel complement of nearly 40 persons.
Q12. Can you provide some information about training programs for the personnel at Robinson 2?
A 12. The training programs at CP&L's nuclear projects, including Robinson 2, are described in the joint testimony of James M. Davis, Jr. and A. Wayne Powell in this proceeding. We will highlight several areas in which these programs have 4 been successfully implemented at Robinson 2.
First, our training program for, the licensing of operators (both SROs and
' ROs) has produced outstanding results. The NRC's testing of Reactor Operators is a rigorous experience, with industry success rates of less than 50 percent common. Yet, as the attached Beatty-Morgan Attachment 4 demonstrates, the number of ROs at Robinson 2 passing the NRC examination has been at least 80 percent in all years since 1977 in which the examination has been admin a
- tered to Robinson personnel. SROs have been equally successful. With the exception of 1980, Robinson SROs have consistently achieved a 100 percent passing rate since
i 1977. All-three of the SROs who did not initially pass the examination in 1980 subsequently did pass after additional training. The number of persons shown in Beatty-Morgan Exhibit 4 who have taken and successfully completed the SRO and RO examinations is also important since it demonstrates that the training program is producing sufficient numbers of licensed operators to meet plant needs.
Another notable training-related achievement at the Robinson project is the certification of three areas of the Robinson training program by INPO in May 1984. The INPO accreditation process is described further in the joint testimony of Messrs. Davis and Powell. These areas accredited comprise the operator training areas. Certification of the remaining seven areas is anticipated by 1986. This certification places Robinson 2 well ahead of typical nuclear utility training programs. Robinson is only the fourth nuclear unit in the United States to receive INPO certification of a portion of its training program.
We would also note that the completion of an on-site training center in the spring of 1984 at a cost of over 2 million dollars is a tangible demonstration of our commitment to proper staff training. This facility houses classrooms and offices for the full time training staff which now numbers approximately 20 persons.
Finally, the comprehensive training of fire brigade members at Robinson 2 is worth noting. Members of the Robinson fire brigade not only participate in in-house training, but also receive professional fire fighting training at an excellent 1
fire fighting schoolin Columbia, South Carolina. Thus,in the eventuality of a fire at Robinson 2, the fire brigade is unusually qualified to respond.
Q13. Have any independent organizations evaluated aspects of the Robinson 2 I
organization?
- A 13. There have been three recent evaluations of the Robinson 2 organization. In November 1983, INPO conducted an evaluation of site activities to make an l
l y- , -- - y-,. -
,-+-.e-*ww=r--ww--- e -- v- - -w,-
- overall determination of plant safety and management controls. Overall, the INPO evaluation team for Robinson 2 reported a number of practices that are indicative of a well-run plant, including improved housekeeping and material conditions; a low personnel attrition level and high experience level; good morale and a positive attitude by plant personnel; and strong support of site activities by corporate management. Additionally, the INPO team noted the following " good practices": (1) enhancement of plant operations by the expeditious processing of temporary procedure changes and revisions; (2) thorough and timely responses to deficiencies through the QA program which reflect a strong management commitment to quality; and (3) use of the plant layout / grid system to quickly direct personnel to the location of plant equipment.
The results of a second recent outside evaluation are contained in the NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Pe' formance (SALP) report for Robinson 2 for the period from January 1,1982 thro @ January 31,1983. The SALP program is an NRC Staff effort to collect performance observations on an annual basis and to evaluate the licensee according to the observations. Positive and negative attributes of performance are noted. Although the SALP report did identify a need for improvement in the areas of licensing and quality assurance at Robinson, its overall conclusion was that performance at the plant level was satisfactory.
The NRC transmittalletter dated June 14,1983 for the SALP report commented that " Management attention and appropriate involvement in various safety activities were evident at your Robinson facility."
A final outside review was performed by the management consulting firm of Cresap, McCormick, and Paget,Inc. (Cresap). Pursuant to a 1982 order from the North Carolina Utilities Commission, Cresap performed an audit of CP&L's t
management, including an evaluation of activities at the Robinson site. The l
l l
I
4 *
- resulting Cresap Report found that performance of Robinson 2 was higher than the industry average for comparable units during the preceding five years. In its letter of December 15, 1982, transmitting the results of the management audit, Cresap identified "more-than-acceptable operating performance of . . . the Robinson nuclear generating station" as one of the CP&L " strengths or accomplishments that offer evidence of commendable performance."
Q14. How has the Company dealt with operating difficulties that have arisen at Robinson 2 over the years?
A 14. Operating difficulties should be rectified promptly to ensure safe, efficient operation of our power plants. One such difficulty at Robinson 2 was increased degradation of steam generator tubes which became apparent in 1980. This steam generator degradation problem was not unique to Robinson 2. In February 1982, the NRC reported that of the 40 PWR units operating in the United States with U-tube steam. generators, 32 had experienced one or more forms of tube degradation. Extensive den'ing-related degradation of steam generator tubes forced Virginia Electric & Power Company to replace the steam generators at its Surry Units 1 and 2 beginning in 1979, followed shortly by Florida Power & Light Company at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, and Wisconsin Electric Power Company at Point Beach Unit 2.
When Robinson 2 started experiencing steam generator tube degradation, the Company promptly initiated actions to arrest the corrosion problem. The most effective actions were variation of the phosphate chemistry control and reduction of the primary system temperature. As a result of these actions, the Company maintaine6 operation using the phosphate water chemistry longer than any similar Westinghouse unit. In January 1984, it became necessary to shut down Robinson 2 in order to repair leaking tubes. On February 6,1984, the decision was made to initiate a steam generator replacement.
4 9
, , - , - ,, - - - - ., - , - , - - - - - , . - , , - - , - - , . . . , - - -,,,,.,-,,,.n ,,, , - _ , . , - - , . , - - . , ,a-n- ,n
When it became apparent that replacing the Robinson 2 steam generators would probably be necessary, we began to plan for that eventuality in coordination with utilities that had already undergone similar replacements. Thus, we were able to benefit from the experience of other utilities that were forced to replace their steam generators at an earlier date.
As a part of our planning, more than two dozen CP&L employees who would have responsibility for quality assurance, radiation control, health physics, .
planning and scheduling, and construction supervision during the Robinson repair
- program observed and studied repair efforts underway at Florida Power & Light Company's Turkey Point plant or at Wisconsin Electric Power Company's Point Be9.ch plant. Good practices observed at those plants were incorporated into pre-planning for the Robinson program. For example, as a result of observations at Turkey Point, we decided to do some of the welding at Robinson outside the containment area to reduce radiation exposure. A CP&L project engineer was assigned to the Turkey Point project for seven months as construction coordinator and field supervisor on their replacement program. That experience was invaluable when he returned to Robinson and was assigned the responsibility to coordinate construction activities during our replacement program.
Not only did the Company send employees to other plants to observe replacement projects, but we also employea a number of persons with actual experience in the planning and scheduling, construction and health physics aspects of the steam generator repair programs at Surry and Turkey Point. The Westinghouse project manager for the Turkey Point replacement program was assigned to the same duties at Robinson, serving as liaison between CP&L and Westinghouse as contractor for the replacement program.
To maintain radiation exposure levels for both on-site and off-site personnel at levels that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), CP&L developed a f
comprehensive radiological protection program. We have employed a variety of techiques to reduce exposure levels, including decontamination of the containment building and specific high exposure components in the work areas, use of temporary shielding in the work areas, and use of specialized tools (such as remote cutting apparstus) when appropriate. There has also been a heavy emphasis on personnel training as a means to reduce levels of radiation exposure.
We believe these efforts are paying off. As a result of CP&L's comprehensive planning and preparation, the total occupational radiation exposure recorded for all major tasks completed to date during the replacement program is approximately 50 percent of the amount originally projected. For most activities, actual exposures have been much lower than projected. For example, radiation exposure during the cutting end removal of the upper assemblies was projected to be 80 manrems but the work was accomplished with less than 5 manrems exposure. The replacement program is on schedule and more than 75 percent complete; the unit is expected to be returned to service before the end of this year.
Q15. How has the Company dealt with other operating difficulties that have arisen at Robinson 2 over the years?
A 15. Another example of the capability of CP&L management to deal effectively with unusual operating difficultiet was its handling of the pressurized thermal shock (PTS) issue. This issue centered on the ability of the reactor vessel at Robinson 2 to withstand a temperature 1 hock while at pressure. It was theorized that certain welds on the reactor vessel could fracture under certain temperature-pressure conditions due to the presence of trace metals in the welds. In turn, this
might result in an unisolatable loss of primary coolant from the primary containment system. In the early 1990s, it seemed possible that very major modifications and repairs would be required to allow continued operation of tlw unit. In response to this concern, the Company mounted major efforts to train personnel to recognize the condition and operate the unit accordingly, plan necessary modifications, redesign the core so as to reduce neutron leakage (which irradiated the affected area), and reanalyze the reactor vessel. As a result of the reanalysis and a new low-leakage core design, CP&L was able to alleviate the PTS concern from a high priority issue with large potential impact - on plant performance, to an issue with iho expected impact on plant performance or life. i Q16. Please characterize the record of NRC enforcement activities for Robinson 2 over the past several years.
A 16. A summary of NRC enforcement actions since 1981 with respect to i .
Robinson 2 is contained in Beatty-Morgan Attachment 5. A list of.t'he number of LERs submitted during each year since 1970 is provided in Beatty-Morgan Attachment 6. Over the past several years, the number of LERs has remained essentially constant with some fluctuations from year to year.
As can be seen from Attachment 5, the number of NRC notices of violation (NOVs) issued with respect to Robinson 2 declined between 1981 and 1983. Only 24 such NOVs were issued during 1983 compared with 41 in 1982 and 34 in 1981.
(.
Through the end of July 1984, 22 NOVs have been received during 1984, primarily l
due to the much greater site activity associated with the steam generator t
f replacement program. We expect this number to decline again when the !
replacement program is completed. Of the 24 NOVs issued during 1983,23 were in the two lowest severity levels. The remaining one was a Severity Level III
(
I violation for which a $40,000 civil penalty was initially assessed, but which was i
- - _ . _ . _ , , _ , _ _ _ _ . . , , . ..,______m.___ ., . . . _ ~ , , _ _ . , _ _ _ , _ . , _ , _ . . . - , _ _ _ _ _ - - - - , , . . . - . . , , , .
l 1
subsequently reduced to $20,000 because of CP&L's prompt corrective actions.
4 This violation involved the failure of a security guard employed by a CP&L contractor to secure access and the failure of a shift supervisor to respond properly to the situation. In response to the violation, CP&L took extensive corrective action, including initiating disciplinary action against the persons involved, conducting a series of meetings and classes with personnel to emphasize
, the importance of assigned duties, and committing to greater CP&L oversight of the security force.
Q17. What is CP&L's record on industrial safety at Robinson 2?
A17. Our industrial safety record at Robinson 2 has been outstanding. In the past seven years, there has been only one accident at Robinson 2 which resulted in lost work time. Within the past six weeks, the plant operators won an in-house award for 200,000 manhours worked without a doctor-attended accident. Our commitment to safety has been recognized by the South Carolina Department of Labor which in 1976,1977,1978,1982 and 1983 awarded the plant (and the rest of CP&L's Southern Division) the South Carolina Occupational Safety Council Award for outstanding safety performance compared to other South Carolina companies in the power generation and transmission industry. In addition, Robinson 2's good record has contributed to CP&L's receiving a number of national and regional safety performance awards.
Q18. How would you characterize your philosophy in managing Robinson 2?
J A18. Our ultimate goal is the safe and reliable operation of the plant. We are totally committed to plant safety and regulatory compliance. To accomplish this goal, we attempt to employ the best persons for each position and to ensure that
-they are properly motivated to do their job. We believe that the operating staff should be relieved of unnecessary administrative burdens so that they can
. . I concentrate on effective operation and maintenance. In addition, we believe that it is important that the plant management structure establish clear lines of authority and responsibility.- It is essential that all plant personnel be held accountable for the effects of their actions on plant operation.
One manifestation of our commitment to safety and regulatory compliance at Robinson 2 is the Robinson Long-Term Improvement Plan (RLTIP). The RLTIP was established in 1983 as a result of a self-initiated evaluation of Robinson 2.
Although that evaluation found that performance was acceptable in all areas, we identified improvements that could be made in such areas as regulatory compliance, revision to procedures, and training. Of the 18 action items identified in the RLTIP,16 have already been implemented. The remaining two items, dealing with the formatting, revision and upgrading of procedures, are well along toward completion.
Q19. How do you personally assure yourself that this philosophy is carried out?
A19. Deatty:
First of all, I try to incorporate the knowledge Pye gained through experience in the nuclear industry in fulfilling my managerial responsibilities.
j This experience is of great value to me in selecting plant personnel and in discussing technical and operational problems with my staff. I always make an effort to get out in the plant on a daily basis to observe ongoing activities. In addition, I hold routine meetings with all segments of the plant staff and regularly review standard plant performance indicators to determine if any problems have arisen. I have worked to implement the managerial changes that were included in the 1983 reorganization and which, I believe, establish the kind of management structure conducive to optimum plant operation.
Morgan:
1
4 I wholly concur with Mr. Beatty's comments. Let me emphasize that in
'- managing a nuclear power plant there is no substitute for personalinspections and i
direct involvement in plant operations. I spend a very substantial part of my time a each day in just those kinds of activities.
Q20. Mr. Beatty and Mr. Morgan, do you believe that the record of Robinson 2 supports
-the position that CP&L has the management capability to operate and maintain the unit safely, efficiently, and in conformity with NRC regulations?
A20. It is clear that CP&L's track record in the operation of the Robinson 2 is good. The Company's responsiveness to regulatory requirements is demonstrated by the enforcement record at Robinson 2, implementation of the RLTIP, and the Company's willingness to take prompt corrective action when compliance problems have arisen. The Company's positive approach toward regulatory compliance is confirmed by the findings of the last SALP report on Robinson 2 and
[
l the other outside evaluations which we mentioned.
CP&L's response to the steam generator problem is a good illustration of its ability to manage the unit properly. As a result of measures taken to extend the life of the steam generators, we were able to benefit from the experience of other utilities that were forced to replace steam generators at an earlier date. Our extensive ~ preplanning has led to lower personnel radiation exposure, smaller radioactive contamination problems, and a more efficient replacement program at Robinson 2. The current replacement outage is on schedule and should compare favorably in duration with that experienced by other utilities. It should ultimately.
result in the improved availability of Robinson 2.
i We believe that we have a strong management team in place at Robinson 2 and that the current organizationalstructure permits efficient decision-making at -
all levels. We have always sought to maintain high standards in managing i Robinson 2 and will continue to do so in the future.
I .
Q21. Does this conclude your testimony?
A21. Yes, it does.
A 22 -
4 ROBINSON NUCLEAR PROJECT DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT j
- ORGANIZATION i
Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation Group I
, ---y--- Off-site I
l Project
- Manager Robinson Nuclear
) Project Department l General Manager Manager
! Manager Control and Design i
Robinson Plant Administration Engineering i
i Manager Manager Planning and Project Scheduling Construction i
i l Beatty-Morgan Attachment 1
NUCLEAR EXPERIENCE (YEARS)' .
EDUCATION CP&L CP&L OTHER ' GRAND TITLE PERSON ASSIGNED DEG/ MAJOR /YR SRO HBR 'OTHER TOTAIi USN INDUS. TOTAL'
- CP&L EXPERIENCE G. P. Beatty BS/ME/1958 1970 8 -
8 -
10 18 M2 nager - Robinson Nuclear Project i General Manager - R. E. Morgan 1970 15 41/2 19 1/2 - -
.19 1/2
- Robinson Plant M. J. Reid BS/ME/1948 NR 2 -
2 -
3 5 Manager - Project Construction B. G. Rieck NR 1/2 yr. I 1/2 2 -
27- 29 Manager - Control & BS/ Chem /1949 Administration
- Manager - Planning & J. J. Sheppard BS/NE/1970 MBA/1982 NR 1/2yr. 5 51/2 51/2 11/2- 12 1/2 Scheduling .
t C. W. Crawford BS/NE/1969 1971 14 -
14 - -
14
! Manager - Operations &
Maintenance Manager - Technical J. M. Curley BS/NE/1974 1977- 91/2 -- 91/2 51/2 3 18 Support Manager - Environmental R. M. Smith NR 1 mo. -
1 mo. 10 9 19 j & Radiation Control i
F. L. Lowery 1985 13 -
13 9 -
22
! Operating Supervisor -
i Unit No. 2 l Maintenance Supervisor - W. T. Gainey 1972 71/2 7 14 1/2 -
51/2 20 j Unit No. 2
! 11 -
11 Maintenance Supervisor R. H. Chambers BS/NE/1973 1976 11 - -
l i Unit No. 2 NR - Not Required l
ME - Mechanical Engineering j NE - Nuclear Engineering Beatty-Morgan Attachment 2 i
Beatty-Morgan Attachment 3 Robinson 2 Staff Size (Actual)
Date Number *
- 1971 91 1972 80 1973 80 1974 101 1975 102 1976 111 1977 113 1978 134 1979 157 1980 215 1981 220 1982 256 1983 298 1984 268**
- Actual staff assigned to Robinson 2 In
- the mid-year period of the year indicated. Number does not include approximately 45 SHNPP personnel assigned to Robinson 2 from 1979 to mid - 1982.
- The drop in staff size between 1983 and -
1984 reflects the management reorganization described in the testimony at pages 4-5. Personnel performing certain administrative functions were transferred out of the Plant General Manager's organization.
i 9
- m. ,. .,, -,------,,,,.-,._v~,,.-, ,, e ,,-n7 .--,,,.,,e~--w,y.,- -g-,-,-,. ,. g --w - , , - e , -- ,, - . .,.,- , - - - -. y -,
~~
Bratty-Morgan Attachmint 4 p; ROBINSON NUCLEAR PROJECT
'NRC LICENSE EXAMINATION RESULTS Licensed Reactor Operators Senior Reactor Operators Year Number Number % Number Number %
Tested Passed Tested Passed 1977 6 5 83 6 6 100 1978 9 9 100 0 1979- 9 9' 100 3 3 '100 1980 0 4 1 25 1981 5 4 80 0 1982 6 6 100 6 6 100 1983 0 8 8 100 1
-
- Bratty-Morgan Attachment 5 NCNOCNPLIANCE HISIORY EDR H. B. BOBINSON UNIT NO. 2 (Notices of Violation Issued by NRC) 1981 1982 1983 1984*
Security Level:
I O O O O II O O O '
O III 3 1 1 1 lV 11 21 12 13 V 17 19 11 8 VI** 3
'Ibtal Violations: 34 41 24 22 Security Levels I and II: Violations that are of very significant regulatory concern. In general, violations that are included in these severity categories involve actual or high potential inpact on the public.
Security Ievel III: Violations that are cause for concern.
Security level IV: Violations that are less serious but are of nore than minor concern; b, if left uncorrected, they could lead to a nore serious concern. -
Security Level V: Violations that are of minor safety or envirormental concern.
- Notices of Violation received through July 1984
- No longer used i
f(E ~-
, _ - ., Bratty-Morgan Attachmtnt- 6 LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2 YEAR NUMBER 1970 13 1971 18 1972 19 1973 21
, 1974 32 1975 20 1976 21 1977 33 1978 32 1979 37 1980 29 1981 33 1982 19
'1983 31 J
l
.AF ,I gwCD C1 ' '
August 9;'1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD *g j gg In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ) ,
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )
Unit 1) )
APPLICANTS' JOINT TESTIMONY OF R.A. WATSON AND J.L. WILLIS ON JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 1 (M AN AGEMENT CAP ABILITY)
I
'N ;
i JOINT TESTIMONY OP R. A. WATSON AND J. L. WILLIS l
L i
1 Ql. Please state your name, business address, and position with Carolina Power & Light Company and describe your educational background and professional experience.
t A1. Watson:
My name is R. A. Watson. I am Vice President - Harris Nuclear Project Department. My business address is the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Post Office Box 165, New Hill, North Carolina. I have a bachelor's degree from North Carolina State University in nuclear engineering and a master's degree from Union College in physics. I have also studied at the Oak Ridge School of Reactor Technology in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. I am a registered professional engineer, I have previously qualified as a senior reactor operator at another facility and have 28 years of experience in nuclear engineering activities. I was with the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratories for 13 years. I have been with Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) for 15 years and was Vice President of the Fuel Department prior to assuming my current position.
-7 Willis:
My name is J. L. Willis. I am General Manager - Harris Plent Operations Section. My business address is the Shearon Harris Nuclear Powe Plant, Post
- Office Box 165, New Hill, North Carolina. I have a bachelor's degree from the United States Naval Academy in electrical engineering and I attended the Navy's Nuclear Power School. I have 31 years in Navy and utility power plant engineering, maintenance, operation, and management, including 28 years of nuclear power
i l
1 1
experience. Immediately prior to my employment with CP&L,I was Manager of Nuclear Training for Southern California Edison. I have been with CP&L since October 1981 and have been the plant General Manager at Shearon Harris since April 1982. I was assigned as Manager - Plant Operations at Harris from October 1981 to April 1962.
Q2. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A2. The purpose of this testimony is to describe the Harris Plant Nuclear Project Department organization and to demonstrate that CP&L possesses the management capability to operate the Harris plant safely.
Q3.
Mr. Watson and Mr. Willis, will you please describe your approach to managing the Harris Plant?
A3. Watson:
My objective is to operate the plant in such a manner that the health and safety of the general public is assured at all times. My management philosophy incorporates some rather fundamental concepts:
Good management must start with good people who work as a unified and cohesive team. Thus, strong organization consisting of highly qualified and dedicated people with a clear definition of responsibility and authority is the foundation of the Harris Nuclear Project Department. Effective communication, upward as well as downward, is essential at all levels of the organization.
Management follow-through and personal accountability are required at all levels of management. Finally, discipline and strict adherence to procedures are absolute requirements for any nuclear activity.
I inve attempted to communicate this philosophy to " >lant personnel and I will continue to refine my approach to managing Harris' based on feedback from personnel in all levels of our organization. I believe that this will ensure that operations of the Harris plant will meet the highest of standards.
Willis:
I share Mr. Watson's views, and I would add that our philosophy of management includes ensuring a sound training program for our management and operating personnel. Also, the importance of staff attention to detail and procedural compliance cannot be over-emphasized. There must be a desire and willingness to take the time to do a job right the first time and to search for root causes of problems. We insist that constant vigilance and attention to detail be mMntained.
Q4. Please describe the organizational structure of the Harris Nuclear Project Department.
A4. The Harris Nuclear Project Department is organized in a manner similar to the organization presently in place at CP&L's Robinson and Brunswick plants. It is structured to ensure clear lines of authority, responsibility, and communication in order to promote effective managerial control. The organization has been designed to provide an orderly and efficient transition from the Harris plant design and construction phases to the operating phase.
A chart depleting the organization of the Harris Nuclear Project Department is shown on Watson-Willis Attachment 1. As discussed by Mr. Utley in his tedimony, in 1983 CP&L ascigned Mr. Watson, a company Vice President, to the plant site with the authority and responsibility for all line functions at the site.. This has provided more direct management control over the engineering, construction, startup, operation, and maintenance activities at the Harris plant. Quality I
assurance and corporate nuclear safety organizations are also located on site but report off-site to ensure the organizationalindependence of these functions.
The Harris Nuclear Project Department, located entirely on site, is organized into five sections: Operations, Engineeting, Construction, Administration, and Planning and Controls. Each section is headed by a manager who reports directly to the Vice President - Harris Nuclear Project Department.
The Harris Plant Operations Section, which we will discuss in greater detaillater, is responsible for all operational phases of plant management, including startup and testing, operation, maintenance, chemistry, environmental and radiation controls, and on-sitt, technical site support.
Administration of the design of the Harris plant during construction is the responsibility of the Harris Plant Engineering Section. During the testing, startup, and operation of the Harris plant, this section will have the continuing t
responsibility to direct engineering modifications and design configuration control for the operating unit and to provide additional on-site technical support to the Operations Section. The Harris plant will thus benefit from the fact that the same
- technical staff that administered its design during construction will be responsible for providing technical support to plant operations personnel during the first several years of plant operation.
l
'- _4_
The Ha:ris Plant Construction Section manages the construction of the Harris plant and has control over construction-related contractor . ac the plant site.
The Harris Project Administration Section is responsible for the efficient and effective overall site adminisication activities such as directing the records management and document control programs, developing and coordinating state-of-the-art communications and management systems, and providing administrative support to the project management and various project organizations.
Finally, the Harris Project Planning and Controls Section provides site planning and scheduling, cost accounting and controls, industrial engineering, and related activities. These related activities include short- and long-range planning, cost monitoring and reporting, and performance evaluation and reporting.
In addition to the Harris Nuclear Project Department, other - corporate organizations provide essential support to the Harris plant. These include the on-site Quality Assurance (QA) organization, the on-site Nuclear Safety (ONS) Unit, the on-site Training Unit, and the on-site Employee Relations Unit, which are all integral parts of the operation of the Harris plant. Although they report off-site, these units work directly with our plant organization to ensure the quality of work performed, safety of operations, and adequate training of plant personnel, and to assist in recruitment and retention of personnel. The activities ' of these organizations are further discussed in the testimony of Messrs. Utley, el al. and Messrs. Davis and Powell.
QS. Please describe the educational qualifications and experience of the other Harris plant managers.
. - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ l
AS. The Manager - Harris Plant Engineering Section, Mr. L. I. Loflin, has a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, has a professional degree in nuclear engineering, and is a registered professional engineer. He has had 19 years of engineering and power plant operations experience, 13 years of which have been in nuclear engineering. He was employed as operating supervisor responsible for all plant operational functions at VEPCO's Surry Nuclear Plant, and has held a Senior Reactor Operator's (SRO) license. After joining CP&L, Mr. Loflin served for a 4
time as engineering startup coordinator at the Brunswick plant and later as Manager of the Corporate Nuclear Safety Section.
The Project General Manager - Harris Plant Construction Section, Mr. R. M.
Parsons, holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering, is a registered professional engineer, and has 16 years of experience in nuclear power plant construction management. Prior to joining CP&L, he was employed by Ebasco Services,Inc., the Architect - Engineer for the Harris plant. During that time, he received construction management experience at the Virgil C. Summer and St. Lucie Nuclear Plants, and at CP&L's nuclear-powered Robinson Unit 2. Mr. Parsons has
' been with CP&L for eight years.
i The Manager - Harris Project Planning and Controls Section, Mr. T. J. Allen, has l
I l a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a masters degree in business administration. Mr. Allen is a registered professional engineer with nine years experience in planning and scheduling activities, two of which were directly related to nuclear plant activities. He was previously assistant to the Executive Vice President at CP&L's Brunswick plant.
The Manager - Harris Project Administration Section, Mr. W. J. Hindman, Jr.,
holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering, and is a registered professional i
L engineer. He has nine years of experience in nuclear plant engineering and I
construction-related actiGties with CP&L. He has been at the Harris s'te since 1979 as a Senior Engineer and Director - Project Analysis prior to his current position.
Q6. Returning to the Harris Plant Operations Section, will you , describe its basic structure?
A6. The Harris Plant Operations Section will actually operate the plant and is headed by the Plant General Manager who reports directly to the Vice President - Harris Nuclear Project. The Plant General Manager is supported by five units, and three suounits: Administration, Regulatory Compliance, Startup, Technical Support, and Plant Operations Units, and Maintenance, Environmental and Radiation Control, and Operations Subunits. A chart depicting the Operations Section is set forth in Watson-Willis Attachment 2. The qualifications of the men who manage those units and subunits are summarized in Chapter 13 of the Harris Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Amendment 13. See Applicants' Exhibit .
The Administration Unit provides adminhtrative waort to the Plant General Manager, manages the operations-related administrative functions, and directs emergency preparedness planning and operational security activities.
The Regulatory Compliance Unit coordinates activities at the plant to ensure that commitments, responses, and reports to regulatory agencies as well as plant records are prepared, submitted, and maintained in accordance with regulatory
requirements. This unit maintains a tracking system that monitors the status of plant safety and environmental concerns until their resolution. It also serves as the on-site contact with the NRC and provides expertise necessary to support plant activities in accordance with the plant license and Technical Specifications.
The Startup and Test Unit is responsible for performing the Harris Nuclear Project preoperational and startup test program which we will discuss later.
The Technical Support Unit provides engineering support for the entire plant staff. Their support involves investigations of day-to-day equipment and system operation. Based on their investigatio ts, they recommend modification tasks to maintain the plant in compliance with aew regulations or to improve efficiency of operation.
The Plant Operations Unit is comprised of the Maintenance, Environmental and Radiation Control, and Operations Subunits. The Unit is responsible for operating the Harris reactor plant and required suport facilities safely and efficiently. Its responsibilities include ensuring timely completion of scheduled periodic tests and ensuring adherence to the terms of' the operating lleense and plant Technical Specifications.
The Maintenance Subunit is responsible for all corrective and preventive maintenance on plant systems and equipment. This includes ensuring that the equipment and associated instrumentation and controls and mechanical and electrical systems in the plant are maintained at optimum dependability and operating efficiency.
The Environmental & Radiation Control Subunit administers the plant radiation safety and controi (health physics) programs, the chemical control programs, and the environmental programs.
I The Operations Subunit is headed by the Operations Manager and includes six I shift operating crews assigned to the Harris plant. Each shift will be supervised by a Shift Foreman who will have been licensed as a SRO. At a minimum, each shift will consist of two Senior Control Operators who have SRO licenses, two Control-Operators who have Reactor Operator (RO) licenses, and four Auxiliary Operators l (AO). Each shift operating crew will be charged with responsibility for operating l the plant in a safe and reliable manner within the plant Technical Specifications,
. operating procedures, the corporate nuclear safety and health physics policies. the corporate QA and as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) programs, and NRC and other applicable regulatory requirements.
Four of the shift operating crews will operate the plant on three rotating shifts,-
the fifth crew will be used as a relief shift for vacationing and sick operators, and the sixth crew will be in training. Each shif t will periodically function as the relief shift or the training shift. The use of six shifts in this manner is intended to provide ample opportunity for all personnel to receive training and retraining l without imposing excessive or unusual working hours on the other personnel.
Q7. Is the Harris Operations Section being staffed in accordance with NRC guidelines?
A7. Yes. The staffing positions we have established and the qualifications for personnel filling those positions were developed in accordance with ANSI /ANS 3.1, Selection, Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants, September 1979 Draft, as documented in the Harris Plant FSAR at Chapter 1.
J l
Q8. How has CP&L gone about staffing the Harris Plant Operations Section?
A8. CP&L began staffing the Operations Section in 1979. The Harris Operations /Startup Group, consisting of 57 personnel, moved from the corporate i
office to the site in September 1981, when construction of Harris Unit I was l approximately 50 percent complete. At that time, there were 187 Operations Section parsonnel assigned to the Harris plant but stationed at other CP&L )
facilities for training or other assignments. In 1982, the number of Operations Section personnel on site grew to 370 with the transfer of personnel from other CP&L facilities and the hiring of new employees. Formation of the Harris Nuclear Project Department 'n September 1983 resulted in reassignment of some personnel to the Harris Project staff. The current Operations Section staffing is 374 persons.
Our Operations Section staff at comencement of commercial operation, including Startup Unit personnel, is planned to total 459. We intend to fill the 85 positions l.
I which are now open by transferring current CP&L personnel from other CP&L facilities (while maintaining more than sufficient good personnel at those other plants) and hiring new employees through CP&L's recruitment program.
During the first two years of operation, we plan to maintain the total Operations Section staff at approximately the same level as at initial commercial operation to ensure proper staffing including integration of startup personnel into the operating plant staff.
Q9. Describe CP&Us recruiting and hiring program in more detail.
._. __ , _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ . _ . . _ , , . _ _ . _ . . ~ - . _ .
A9. The Company recognizes the necessity for a strong recruiting program as an important means of fulfulling its manpower needs. Thus, the Company has developed a comprehensive program for recruiting new employees from colleges, universities, community colleges, two-year technical schools, and naval
. Installations. Particular emphasis is placed on recruiting engineering and technical personnel. The Company also participates in a Cooperative Education Program whleh has been established at eight four-year and six two-year educational institutions. This program, along with the Company's summer employment program, provides vocational training to students, and serves as a means of identifying potential employees.
Q10. How many previously licensed operators are currently employed at the Harris plant and how many will be employed during startup and normal operations?
A10. Currently, 20 personnel in the Harris Plant Operations Section have previously.
obtained commercial SRO or RO licenses at other nuclear plants. These personnel collectively have over 60 years of licensed nuclear experience and over 200 years of total nuclear experience.
We plan to have 26 licensed SROs and 18 licensed ROs, for a total of 44, at initial commercial operation. This staffing projection is based on the numbers of i personnel whom we believe will pass our training program and be recommended for and receive licenses from the NRC. We expect to have more than the minimum 4
number of licensed personnel required to man the six shifts. This planned staffing exceeds regulatory requirements. Incidently, this number does not include the Shift Technical Advisors. It is our intention that they also will be licensed.
Qll. How many Harris plant personnel are currently in the licensed operator training
! program?
I All. Currently there are 95 Harris plant personnelin the licensed operator training I
program: 51 SRO candidates, 30 RO candidates, and 14 AO candidates. Cold license exams (all exams given prior to commercial operation of the reactor) are slated for the spring of 1985 and hot license exams (those given after commercial operation) are scheduled for 1986. Training for the latter exams will begin in late 1985.
The Company's comprehensive training programs are described in .ietail in the joint testimony of James M. Davis, Jr. and A. Wayne Powell. We would like to mention, however, a few of the features of the operator training program which are of particular importance to the operation of the Harris plant.
A CP&L's operator training program incorporates several state-of-the-art techniques and has several special features. Much of the training is conducted in CP&L's modern training facilities at the Shearon Harris Energy & Environmental (E&E) Center. The Harris plant simulator is used to provide comprehensive operator training for normal and emergency plant conditions. This simulator, f delivered in 1977, was one of the first of its kind in the southeast. We are now in the process of purchasing a new simulator which will more closely replicate the
' plant and will be even more accurate in its depiction of design transients. This new simulator is expected to be in place by October 1985. In addition, CP&L makes use l
of the Pulstar Reactor at North Carolina State University to reinforce the trainees' understanding of reactor theory.
. i Another major feature of Harris operator training is that operating shifts will be set up on the six-shift rotating basis to ensure that all operators receive adequate time off, vacation, and a maximum amount of refresher training. i l
Q12. Please describe the Harris plant startup and test program.
A12. The startup and test prograAn is conducted in three sequential programs: (1) the component testing and initial operation program, (2) the preoperational test program, and (3) the startup power test program.
The prograin is based on the criteria set forth in the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.68, Revision 2 as described in Chapter 14 of the FSAR, see Applicants' Exhibit information obtained from other utilities and from Westinghouse, the NSSS supplier; and on CP&L's experience in placing its three other nuclear units into service. The p.sgram is designed to provide the necessary assurance that the facility can be operated in accordance with design requirements and in a manner that will protect the health and safety of the public and our employees. The program's objectives are: (1) to verify that system performance meets design; (2) to train the plant operating and technical staff and familiarize them with the the facility as an operating plant; (3) to verify the plant operating and emergency procedures, to the extent practicable, during the performance of the program; and (4) to verify or improve through minor design changes the reliable performance of both safety and non-safety systems / equipment.
The component test program begins upon completion by construction personnel of portions of systems which are " released for test" to the Startup Group. The primary objective of this program is to prepare systems for preoperational testing by verifying that components within the system have been checked out, calibrated, and/or initially operated. The first Harris system was released for test in September 1982. As of August 1984, more than 500 out of 1064 of such systems or
' system components have been released for test.
The preoperational test program will begin upon turnover of systems to the Harris Plant Operations Section. The primary objective of preoperational testing is to verify prior to initial core loading that systems perform in accordance with design and safety requirements. The safety-related preoperational tests described in Section 14.2.12 of the FSAR will receive the most scrutiny. It is obviously important to CP&L, however, that non-safety systems operate efficiently and reliably. For this reason, we will also perform system functional tests on non-safety systems of the same type and format as those we conduct on safety-related systems. One hundred and fifty-five safety and 71 non-safety test procedures will be performed during this program.
The startup power test program will begin with initial core loading after receipt I of the plant's operating license. The program encompasses initial criticality, zero power operation, ascension to full power, and the 100-hour full power test. The primary objectives of this program are to verify nuclear and thermal hydraulic parameters of the reactor and to demonstrate the plant's ability to withstand anticipated transients.
All phases of our testing program are coordinated and directed by the Startup Unit of the Operations Organization. This Unit consists of engineers who prepare test procedures and plan and direct the testing of all plant systems. The Unit was formed in 1979 and assigned to the Harris site in September 1981,45 months prior l to scheduled fuelloading.
l t
l
-9 The Startup Unit reports to the Plant General Manager and is divided into four ,
)
groups each under a startup supervisor. One group is responsible for the nuclear steam supply systems, another, the balance of plant systems, a third, the radwaste and HVAC systems, and the fourth group is responsible for electrical and electronic systems.
The Harris Startup Unit is supported by other units of the Operations Section..
There are currently approximately 280 plant personnel directly involved in supporting the startup activities. We expect to increase this number to over 400 personnel prior to commercial operation.
Q13. What programs do you have in place to ensure that surveillance and testing of plant systems will be carried out in accordance with NRC requirements?
A 13. The Plant Operating Procedures for Surveillance and Testing and the on-site Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) Section ensure that surveillance and testing will be carried out in accordance with NRC requirements. A computer-based tracking and scheduling system will be utilized to assist us in assuring that surveillance tests are scheduled and completed as required. The l
Operating Procedures for Surveillance and Testing lacorpot;', NRC requirements.
The on-site QA/QC section is responsible for independently assuring adherence to NRC requirements during the startup and subsequent operation of the Harris l plant. In addition to these activities performed by the on-site QA/QC Section, the h
off-site Corporate QA Services Section performs periodic auditing of the procedures and the surveillance and testing activities.
Q14. Please explain how the ALARA concept is being implemented at Harris.
l A14. The Company is committed to ensuring that occupational radiation exposures are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). In implementing the ALARA concept, the Company will follow the NRC's requirements in 10 C.F.R. Part 20 and the l guidance of NRC Regulatory Guides 1.8,8.8, and 8.10.
The ALARA concept is embodied in the corporate health physics policy which tr.sists upon compliance with all state and federal regulations that pertain to radiation protection. The Company's Radiation Control and Protection Manual provides the direction for implementing this corporate policy and comprises part of the plant operating procedures. This manual sets forth the philosophy and general radiation protection standards and procedures that are essential to the safe operation of CP&L's nuclear plants.
The Harris ALARA program consists of plant design features for radiatien protection, carefully prepared plant operating and maintenance procedures, and a health physics training program- for all plant personnel. Additionally, during the construction phase, plant operations personnel conduct reviews of equipment and components for accessibility and maintainability. Considerations of ALARA principles and work efficiency are key factors in their assessment.
The responsibility for implementation of the Harris ALARA program resides with the Plant General Manager, with the support of the Manager - Environmental and Radiation Control and the radiation controlstaff.
Q15. Please review your radiation protection program for Harris.
1 e
l A15. The Harris pknt health physics program is part of the ALARA program and is des:gned to ensure that the 9xposure to radiation of CP&L personnel, contractor ,
i personnel, and the general public will be maintained ALARA. The Harris plant health physics program includes procedures, job planning, record-keeping, special equipment, and an operating philosophy which emphasizes the importance of
, meeting the ALARA objective. Proper preparation and planning will be conducted i
before personnel enter radiation areas where significant doses could be received.
Adequate supervision and radiation protection surveillance will be provided in i
radiation areas to ensure that the appropriate work practices and procedures are followed.
Q16. How have CP&L's experiences in operating the Robi.Jon and Brunswick plants aided you in managing the Harris Nuclear Project?
A 16. The Harris Nuclear Project management has benefitted significantly from the experiences at the Robinson and Brunswick plants. Lessons learned at those plants are reflected in the Harris plant organization structure, our management controls and experience, our efforts in advanced planning and early staffing, and in the personnel training program.
We have benefitted substantially from the reorganization of our plant management organization. Consolidating allline functions under the direction of a Project Manager who is on-site has improved management controls over the Harris project. The management organization has also benefitted from management experience gained by Harris plant personnel who previously held positions at the Robinson or Brunswick plants. We have learned from Robinson and Brunswick the 4
. . . _ _ , _.-._,..m, ,,..__.,.w..,,. _ .,-_
f
. value of early staffing. Thus the planning for the Harris plant staffing began early
- in 1978 - and actual staffing began in 1979. Moreover, the training and experience that some of our Harris operators and staff gained .at the Robinson and Brunswick plants has helped minimize the need for additional training. For example, the Harris plant already has 12 ROs and 6 SROs who were previously licensed at the Robinson or Brunswick plants. Thus the valuable experiences at Robinson and Brunswick have enhanced the ability of the Harris plant management to safely and reliably operate the plant.
4 J
Q17. Mr. Watson and Mr. Willis, how will you personally ensure your philosophies of Harris Plant management will be carried out?
A17. Wa+ son:
Implementation of my management philosophy will be ensured in a number of wa'ys. An efficient and effective management organization structure is in place with clear lines of authority and responsibility. This organization is staffed with well-qualified personnel who are dedicated to carrying out our mission. As I stated earlier, this is the foundation of the Harris team. Effective communication channels within the plant organization, with other parts of the Company, and with l
! our regulators are essential Continuing attention to developing even more effective communications is a necessary action in my management philosophy.1 f
I will demand 100% effort from each member, and I will evaluate the performance of each as wen as the effectiveness of management. Further, I will continue to monitor the collective effectiveness as a team directing the efforts to the overall l
l plant objectives. My direct involvement and presence in plant activities and l decision making, through my regular personal inspections of plant area and my participation in key meetings, provides me with knowledge that my management L_
philosophy is being carr'ul out.
. Prompt follow-up ' of significant issues is essential. Continuous quality support to the plant staff will be provided by the on-l site QA Unit, ONS, corporate management, and the corporate support units.
I believe these actions will ensure successfulimplementation of this philosophy.
Willis:
I will ensure implementation of my management philosophy through my personal involvement in the day-to-day activities of the plant; by setting high standards for performance, communicating those standards and making sure they are enforced.
Personnel will be held accountable for their assigned responsibilities and actions, and my own frequent observations of plant operations will help confirm that the high standards for performance are being met.
Q18. Does this conclude your testimony?
A18. Yes, it does.
1 1
t
^ n e
m h
' c "C a
- t t
A is l
l i
W-n o
s t
a W
T i n
o C
t a
r t
E i i
s n
J d m
O A R
P R t n a r
n
_ A e e ds ul ctc i
t o
E c i
eNj e u r
r o t L P sriP e r r s
n o
C i VH c a C U
N S
I R i g
n r
R e e
n A i g
n H E s
n i
o t
a r
e p
O
I HARRIS PLANT OPERATIONS SECTION Vice President Harris Nuclear Project i
Plant
. General Manager l
j Technical Plant Regulatory Administration Start-Up l
Support Operations Compliance i
i Maintenance Operations Environmental &
Radiation Control j
1 Watson-Willis Attachment 2 l
~
- IQi i :~ ", z.. . . ,n ..
-* a uw ,g August 9,1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h. E C
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD T54 AGO 13 All:34 In the Matter of ) - - .-
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
) Docket No. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN l MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
l
) <
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, ) )
Unit 1) )
APPLICANTS' JOINT TESTIMONY OF JAMES M. DAVIS, JR.
AND A. WAYNE POWELL ON JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION I (MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY) i
I JOINT TESTIMONY ;
OF JAMES M. DAVIS, JR. AND A. WAYNE POWELL Q l. Will you please state your name, employer, position, and business address?
A1. Davis:
I am James M. Davis, Jr., and my business address is 411 Fayetteville Street, Raleigh, North Carolina. I am Senior Vice . President of Operatiohs Support for Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L).
Powell -
My name is A. Wayne Powell. I am the Director-Training - Harris Plant in CP&L's Nuclear Training Section. My business address is Post Office Box 165, New Hill, North Carolina. .
Q2. Will you briefly describe your educational and professional background?
A2. Davis:
I am a graduate of North Carolina State University, from which I received a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering. Af ter three years service as an officer in the U. S. Air Force, I was employed by Pratt and Whitney Aircraft as a test i engineer in the Experimental Engineering Department. In 1965, I went to work with CP&L as an engineer in the Special Services Section. I joined the Rates and Regulation Department in February 1968 and was named Manager of Rates and Service Practices in December 1976. In May 1979, I was elected a Vice President of the Company and on June 1,1979 became a Group Executive for Fuel &
i Materials Management. In December 1980, I became Senior Vice President of the Company. I was named Senior Vice President for Operations Support in the reorganization of August 1983. Among the departments under my management is i
the Operations Training and Technical Services Department which includes the Nuclear Training Section.
l
l Powell:
While serving in the United States Navy for almost 19 years, I received
- extensive training in various Navy Service Schools. For one year I attended the 4 Navy's Nuclear Power School which provided training in all aspects of nuclear i
reactor operations. In addition, I received training from the Navy's Radar School, i Instructor School, Curriculum Development School and Electronic Maintenance School. While in the Navy, I was also trained in the areas of quality assurance Inspection and leadership and management. I have accumulated approximately 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> of credit toward a bachelor's degree from Baptist College at Charleston.
After completing the Nuclear Power School, I served on a number of nuclear-powered ships, first as a reactor operator then as Reactor Control Division Supervisor. I was also qualified as Engineering Watch Supervisor and Engineering Officer of the Watch. In 1976, I became an instructor and curriculum developer at f the Navy Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine Training Center in Charleston, South Carolina. While there I was certified as a Master Training Specialist. I was also awarded the Navy Commendation Medal for achievements in training program development and instruction.
J After my retirement from the Navy, I joined CP&L in July 1979 as a
, Generation Specialist in the Generation Department. Subsequently, I served as a Senior Specialist in the Nuclear Training Section. I was certified by the NRC as a senior reactor operator instructor. In December 1983, I became Director-Training
- of the Harris Training Unit in the Nuclear Training Section. That is the position which I currently hold.
Q3. What is the purpose of your joint testimony?
5..... . . .
1 A3. It is important tiat the personnel who operate and maintain nuclear power l plants be properly trained and qualified. The purpose of our testimony is to discuss 1 the way in which CP&L provides technical training for its nuclear plant personnel.
We will highlight CP&L's corporate commitment to training, the structure of our training organization, the scope of the training program, the personnel who provide this training, the Harris training program and some of the positive results that indicate that we have a good program.
Q4. Discuss CP&L's commitment and philosophy related to training.
A4. CP&L's written Corporate Policy on Training states, in effect, that it is CP&L's policy to provide highly trained and qualified personnel to operate and maintain its nuclear plants. Our training programs are designed to achieve those results.
One indicator of CP&L's commitment to training is the resources we devote to it. The Nuclear Training Section currently has an authorized staff of 136.
CP&L has also committed significant resources toward construction of modern training facilities. We have new training centers at both the Robinson and Brunswick plants, and the Harris training staff will soon occupy new facilities.
Both the Brunswick and Harris plants have control room simulators, and CP&L has recently hsued a request for bids for a Robinson plant simulator. In fact, CP&L was the first utility in the southeast to procure and operate a nuclear plant simulator. This simulator, which is associated with the Harris plant, will be replaced in 1985 with a newer model which more closely replicates the Harris control board. To date, CP&L has invested $32 million in training facilities and equipment.
CP&L's commitment to training is further highlighted by the emphasis we place on obtaining accreditation by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations i
(INPO) of our training programs. In May 1984, CP&L became only the fourth utility to achieve accreditation of a portion of its training programs. Accreditation of the
^
Robinson plant operator training programs was granted by the Accreditation Board based on an evaluation by the INPO Accreditation staff and presentation of these programs at the May 16,1984 meeting of the Board.
QS. Please describe the CP&L organization for technical training.
AS. In 1973, CP&L established its first full time training staff when it created the position of training coordinator at the Robinson and Brunswick plants. As our training needs and student population have grown, the training staff has grown to its present strength of 136. More than half of these people are assigned to the three plant training units. The current structure of the training organization and the reporting relationships svith the nuclear projects is.shown in Davis-Powell Attachment 1.
The Nuclear Training Section provides training for all major classifications of plant personnel including operators, mechanics, electricians, instrumentation and control (I&C) technicians, radiation control technicians, environmental and chemistry technicians, engineers, and managers. This Section is also responsible for training craft and technical personnel at CP&L's fossil and hydro plants.
f The Nuclear Training Section is made up of eight units which support the nuclear projects. One unit is located at each of the three nuclear project sites.
The other five units are located at the Shearon Harris Energy & Environmental Center (E&E Center) at New Hill, North Carolina.
I In general, the five units at the E&E Center provide generic training, i.e.,
4 training applicable to all plants, in a classroom or laboratory environment, and the i
plant training units provide plant-specific training, i.e., training on the systems, equipment and procedures of a particular plant. For example, much of the
auxiliary operator classroom training, which is primarily generie, is conducted at the E&E Center while most reactor operator training, which is primarily plant specific, is conducted by the plant units. These programs are coordinated to ensure completeness without unnecessary duplication.
The three plant training units are similar. Each is composed of about 24 members and is headed by a plant training director. The Harris Training Unit is directed by Wayne Powell whose qualifications have already been discussed. In addition, there are directors at the Company's two other nuclear plant sites.
The Director - Training - Robinson Plant is Charlie Bethea. Mr. Bethea holds an SRO license on Robinson and was one of the original Robinson licensees in 1970. He served as a shift foreman on Robinson and has five years of experience in training.
The Brunswick Training Unit is directed by Perry Hopkins. Mr. Hopkins retired after an aviation career in the U.S. Army and Air Force. He has a master's degree in political science from the University of South Carolina. He was a i Department Head and Director / Coordinator at Midlands Technical College in
- Columbia, South Carolina, for six years and worked with the NRC as a resident inspector for one yea .
Davis-Powell Exhibit I shows the relationships between the plant managers and the plant training directors. We believe that these relationships are a strong feature of cur training organization. The plant training directors report off-site to the Manager - Nuclear Training for matters related to integration with the corporate training program, but they function as part of the plant organization for day-to-day working relationships. This allows us to have the centralized resources required for a corporate program and at the same time to be on-site at each plant to provide direct support to the plant staff. We find that this is the most effective
l l
l way to implement a corporate training organization that is flexible enough and independent enough to meet plant training needs.
At the centrally located E&E Center, the Nuclear & Simulator Training Unit (N&STU) and the Fossil Operator Training Unit are responsible for conducting basic and advanced training for auxiliary operators and control operator candidates. The N&STU also operates the Harris plant control room simulator which is currently used for initial training and retraining of Harris and Robinson plant operators.
The N&STU is supervised by Mr. Howard Smith. Mr. Smith has 20 years of nuclear experience with CP&L and was among the original Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) licensees on the Robinson plant. He has six years of experience as a shift foreman at Robinson.
The Fossil Operator Training Unit is directed by Mr. Tom Suggs. Mr. Suggs has 20 years power plant experience with CP&L and was a fossil plant shift foreman for 10 years.
The Craft Technical Training Unit provides classroom and laboratory training for plant mechanics, electricians, I&C technicians, radiation control technicians, and environmental and chemistry technicians. These courses typically involve extensive " hands on" laboratory training in our well-equipped laboratories where the students perform troubleshooting exercises on actual equipment which is
" guaranteed not to work the first time."
The Craft Technical Training Unit is supervised by Mr. Marvin Pate. Mr.
Pate has seven years experience with CP&L. Prior to his employment with CP&L, he was employed by Wake Technical College for 10 years, the last 3 years of which he served as Dean of the Vocational Program.
The Curriculum Development Unit supports training in four major areas. This Unit administers the training evaluation program which lets us know how well our courses and instructors are doing, *.vhich programs can be improved, and how. They take the lead role in CP&L's efforts to obtain INPO ecereditation. The Curriculum Development staff is also responsible for developing and conducting initial and continuing training for. our instructors, i.e., they teach our instructors how to teach and provide advice and counsel on the latest training methods and techniques. Most important, the Curriculum Development Unit assists section instructors in actual development of curriculum and lesson material to support classroom and laboratory training.
The Curriculum Development Unit is directed by Dr. Jerry Wright.
Dr. Wright has a D.Ed. In industrial education from Texas A&M University and served for four years on the North Carolina State Advisory Council on Education.
The Administrative Unit maintains records, compiles statistics and reports, produces the budget, maintains the technical library, and provides other administrative assistance to the Section.
Mr. Jim Millen supervises the Administrative Unit. Mr. Millen has a degree in business management from Coker College and has worked in several administrative capacities in his twelve year career with CP&L. Most recently, he was Senior Specialist - Administration working directly for the Vice President - Operations Training & Technical Services.
Currently, the Nuclear Training Section staff has 690 man-years of power plant experience of which more than 500 man-years are nuclear. Thirteen of our personnel have held or currently hold NRC SRO or Reactor Operator (RO) licenses and an additional 11 of our personnel are certified by the NRC as SRO instructors. I
\
We believe that we have an effective organization and a well-qualified staff.
Q6. Describe how CP&L qualifies its instructors.
A6. To ensure that our instructors are well qualified in the techniques of teaching, we have developed an Instructor Certification Course which is administered by the Curriculum Development Unit. The initial course is approximately three weeks in length and teaches the " criterion referenced instruction" method. It includes instruction on program design, test construction, presentation skills and program administration. The course culminates with a ceremony in which the Company honors newly certified instructors in order to emphasize the importance of the instructor's role in training.
I Each certified instructor attends a periodic refresher course that often includes guest lecturers from the Education Department of North Carolina State University. There is also a technical skills renewal component that requires Instructors to periodically return to a plant assignment in their job skill areas. T Q7.
Please review the technical training programs currently in place at CP&L.
- A7. We provide a wide variety of courses for plant personnel, but the focus is on
- training of operators, maintenance personnel, radiation control technicians, and chemistry technicians. For the operator, mechanic, and electrician c!sssifications,. ;
the training programs are designed to take an employee from entry level as a high i
school graduate to the top of the classification, i.e., licensed SRO for operations personnel, or a first-class electrician or mechanic for employees in the maintenance area. For technicians, such as l&C, radiation control, and environmental and chemistry technicians, the program is designed to take a two-year technical school graduate to the top of classification, i.e.. Technician I. In addition, we have a variety of courses designed for shift technical advisors, engineers, management personnel, and general plant employees. The training program for the Harris plant is described in Section 13.2 of the Harris Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Amendment 14 which is Applicants' Exhibit
To Blustrate the scope and depth of our programs we would like to focus on three areas - General Employee Training, Operator Licensing & Requalification Training, and Craft Technical Training.
CP&L's General Employee Training (GET) is divided into three courses - GET Levels I, II, and III. Levels I and 11 satisfy the regulatory requirements for training of employees working in radiation areas. GET Level I is a four hour course designed for au CP&L employees, contract employees and vendors working at CP&L's nuclear faculties. It provides basic knowledge in the areas of plant description and operation, personal safety, security, emergency alarms, alcohol and drug abuse and the fundamentals of radiation. GET Level U is an eleven hour course that provides basic knowledge and skills in radiation protection.
GET 111 is a forty hour program that provides advanced health physics training for personnel who work in radiation areas. The purpose of this training is to give personnel a better appreciation for radiation protection principles in order that they can be more responsible for their own radiation protection. We began this program with the training of CP&L supervisors and contract personnel who direct the activity of workers in radiation areas. Eventually it wiu be part of the training for an employees whose regular work assignment in radiation control areas requires this advanced level of training.
Our Operator License and Requalification Programs are designed to produce highly trained operators to operate safely the controls of our nuclear units. We offer training courses for qualification as auxiliary operator, reactor operator, and senior reactor operator. These courses include generic and plant-specific classroom training and structured on-the-job training, and licensed operators also receive simulator training.
.g.
The auxiliary operator training is designed to provide knowledge and skills in the basic science and technology of power plant operation, including nuclear and reactor theory, heat transfer and fluid f'ow, mathematics and nuclear plant instrumentation and systems.
The reactor operator training provides skills and knowledge in the areas of advanced nuclear and reactor theory, advanced mathematics, chemistry, metallurgy, fluid flow, and advanced plant systems.
The senior reactor operator training provides advanced academics and fundamentals to prepare a licensed reactor operator to meet the requirements for passing an NRC SRO license exam. The course consists of training in plant operation and procedures, advanced components and systems, transient and accident analysis and a prelicense review.
Craft Technical Training is currently taught at the E&E Center in three levels - basic, intermediate, and advanced. These programs include classroom and laboratory traming for nuclear, fossil and hydro plant electricians, mechanics, I&C technicians, radiation control technicians, and environmental and chemistry technicians. The basic courses are designed for recently hired employees who have completed plant orientation and are ready to learn the fundamentals of the tools, instruments, equipment, and procedures for the routine work they will encounter in their jobs. The intermediate courses get into more specialized maintenance procedures and repairs, and, for the employees in technical classifications, more sophisticated equipment and procedures. The advanced courses deal with the theory of operation of plant equipment, the interrelationship of plant systems, troubleshooting, and directing the work of others.
Finally, in preparation for commercial operation of Harris, we are presently
. conducting cold-license training.
e ^$ < m- W.~ > - - - - e ,,-m.v,, ,,w , , , , , , . . . . , ,.. ,w,,- ,,,_, , , , . , e , - + - , -,,w v-- n
All of our training programs are designed, implemented, and evaluated following the same guidelines and procedures. They incorporate and reflect our corporate commitment to ALARA, and they are modified as necessary to reflect new regulatory requirements, operating experiences, INPO evaluations, CP&L audits, and plant modifications.
Q8. Would you describe the cold-license training at Harris in more detail?
- A8. This program coasists of several phases of training. We start with theory. ,
This is a ten week course consisting of a math review, nuclear and reactor theory, heat transfer, fluid flow, thermodynamics, health physics, radiation protection and chemistry.
Following this is a seven day program at North Carolina State University utilizing the Pulstar reactor. Students perform preeritical and critical operations of the training reactor, as well as reactor startups. The University gives an NRC-style written exam and operator test at the conclusion of this training.
Eighteen weeks of Harris plant system training is next. The students alternate in one week intervals between formal classroom presentations and system checkouts.
l To prepare the trainees for simulator training, a four week pre-simulator course is provided. Topics include theory review; control systems review; emergency, abnormal and normal operating procedures; and a review of recent and related industry events. Another three weeks is devoted to transient and accident analysis and mitigating core damage.
Our simulator training is provided using the Harris simulator. It is approximately a nine week simulator training program designed to duplicate actual plant operations. Rotating shifts are manned by four trainees and two instructors per shift. The shift arrangement allows tf4 w ainee to experience realistic plant
operations and also allows the training staff an opportunity to observe the trainee during varying conditions.
Q9. How does the Nuclear Training Section interact with and support the nuclear l
plants?
A9. Powell:
Although the Nuclear Training Sectiwi has a separate reporting chain from the plant staff, it does not operate independently of the plant staff. The three plant training units are located on-site and report on a dotted line (matrix) basis to the Plant General Manager. This allows day-to-day communications between the plant training director and the plant supervisors and Plant General Manager. For example, at the Harris plant, I discuss training. issues with Jim Willis, Plant General Manager, on an average of twice a week, and I attend weekly management meetings and speak for the Nuclear Training Section in those sessions.
The Mancger-Nuclear Training, Mr. A. C. Tollison, visits the plants frequently. He typically goes to each of the three plants at least monthly and makes it a practice to talk with the Plant General Manager or with other key managers. This gives them the opportunity to discuse with him any problems or issues that might require his attention. In addition, it gives him an opportunity to discuss training plans with them and to get their thoughts and suggestions on how training might be improved.
Each yea:', Mr. Tollison holds an evaluation and planning meeting to discuss the medium- and long-range plans of the Section. This meeting is attended by the Section staf? and management and by key members of the plant staffs. This year there was a separate meeting with each of the three nuclear plant staffs and with a group of senior management personnel which included each of the three nuclear Project Managers. At these meetings, the plans for nuclear training for the next three years were discussed.
Below the management level, the training staff and the plant staff maintain l
close communication and continually interact. Operator instructors frequently visit the plant control rooms and, when possible, accompany operators on their shift assignments. When developing or revising programs, plant input is incorporated by using the operating staff as subject matter experts for job analysis and as Training Advisory Committee members.
We have nine Training Advisory Committees which are composed of first-line supervisors from each of the nuclear and fossil plants, an instructor from the training unit responsible for the program, and a member of the Curriculum Development Unit. These Committees meet to review the appropriateness of our curriculum for the craft and technical classifications and any significant proposed changes to the curriculum.
In summary, there is a close relationship between the Nuclear Training ,
Section and the plants.
Q10. What factors demonstrate the adequacy of CP&L's training programs?
A10. There are many indicators that demonstrate the success of our training programs.
The iacent success rate on NRC RO and SRO exams for the Robinson plant has been excellent. Of the 25 candidates who have taken the NRC license exam over the past three years,24 have passed, for a success rate of 96 percent. The Brunswick operators were also quite successful on the NRC-administered requalification exams in 1983. These exams were the first fully NRC-administered requalification exams given at a utility. Of the fifteen Brunswick operators who took the exam, thirteen passed all sections of it. Two others failed one section of the exam, which they passed after retraining.
Another positive indicator of our training success is the recent accreditation of Robinson operator training programs by the INPO Accreditation Board. The INPO accreditation procedure is similar in many respects to the accreditation program for colleges and universities. It features a self-evaluation report by the utility, an accreditation team visit from INPO, a period of response and completion of actions recommended by the team, and presentation of the training program to the Accreditation Board in Atlanta. INPO accreditation teams are made up of qualified INPO training evaluators and peer evaluators from utilities. This team examines the training program in detail both at the plant site and at central training facilities. The INPO Accreditation Board is made up of five individuals who are nationally prominent in the field of training.
In addition to the Board members, in our case, four members of the alternate
~
Board were present as was Mr. Hugh Thompson, Director - Division of Human i
Factors Safety of the NRC. As noted earlier, the INPO Accreditation Board in May 1984 considered the Robinson operator training programs, and granted accreditation. CP&L was only the fourth utility to have any of its programs accredited by INPO. We are currently beginning work toward accreditation of a second series of CP&L training programs.
Adequacy of the cold-license program at Harris can be evidenced by the successful completion of a certification exam given upon completion of the simulator training phase. Thus far,28 persons have been certified at the SRO level i
j and 7 persons at the RO level. We have provided over 2,800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> of simulator
! training in the first six months of 1984 with a 99.5+ percent simulator availability factor. For most of 1984, the simulator has run three shifts per day.
In summary, we believe that current indicators demonstrate that our training i.
program is strong. As with any program, no matter how good, we can make i
(
i
)
improvements. We are currently working on improvements in several areas in both scope and depth. Current efforts underway include development and l Implementation of the Craft & Technical Development Program which ties training i
to employee promotion, and development of improved plant-specific training at each of the nuclear plants, particularly for craft and technical personnel.
Qll. Is your training program in accordance with NRC and INPO guidelines and regulations?
All. Yes. Our training programs comply with NRC regulations and guidelines and the intent of INPO guidelines and criteria. An integral component of our program development process is a review of regulations and guidelines in conjunction with the task analyses for identifying program content. Applicable regulations and r
guidelines are referenced in plant training instructions for each training program.
We periodically evaluate and review our programs to determine whether there are any new or amended regulations which should be reflected in the program.
Currently, our training programs comply with applicable NRC regulations and INPO guidelines.
CP&Us training programs are aho designed to meet the INPO evaluation performance objectives and criteria. Additionally, we are working to meet the l
accreditation criteria for Robinson and Brunswick and intend to have training programs at those plants accredited by 1986 and at Harris within two years after fuel loading. We use INPO training guidelines as we revise our training programs to ensure that we meet their intent.
. Q12. How do you personally ensure that your training programs and instructors are effective?
A12. Davis:
i L
! l
It is my philosophy that the quality and success of our training program should be measured by the results that are obtained by the nuclear plants. The bottom line is how well our employees perform and how well our plants operate. To judge this result, I review the quality factors that were mentioned earlier, such as success rate on examinations, progress on INPO accreditation, and other quantifiable indicators. We have established a Corporhte goal on passing rates for examinations and retention of qualified students in the training program. In addition to these direct measurements, I review other information such as the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) assessment reports and INPO evaluations.
In addition to reviewing information relative to our training programs,I also obtain feedback first-hand. I think it is very important for all levels of management to stay directly involved in our training activities. I meet with the department manager each week _in a staff meeting where I receive reports on our training activities. In addition, I attend a. monthly senior management review where the status of our nuclear program including training activities is reviewed. I have visited our training facility at the E&E Center and each of our plant training units at the plant sites, and have sat in on classes conducted by our instructors so that I can view first-hand the material that we are presenting to our students. I also make visits to our plant facilities and talk directly to key plant managers.
This helps me assess how well we are meeting our objective of supporting the nuclear plants with trained and qualified people.
Powell:
I try to assess the effectiveness of the training programs and the instructors in several ways. I periodically observe the instructors in the classrooms and at the simulator to see how well the two types of training complement each other.
.~.
- Frequently, I meet with t'he Harris Training Unit staff to get their views on-how training is progressing. I also review the students' evaluations of their courses and instructors, and I review statistics of test scores in order to ascertain any unusually high rate of error on particular questions.
In order to ensure that courses meet the needs of the Harris staff, I encourage input on course development from plant managers and supervisors. In addition, I review industry and NRC publications for significant events that merit incorporation into our training programs.
Finally, I communicate with the training directors at Brunswick and Robinson.
to learn how their programs are being received and any changes they have made to improve their programs. .
Q13. Does that conclude your testimony?
A 13.' Yes,it does.
4 4
~___ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ - . _ _ - . . . __.. __ _ _ . .._ _ _ _.- . _ . . _ _ .. _.
DAVIO - POWELL .
ATTACHMENT 1 Senior Vice President 1
l Vice President Vice President Vice President Manager
- Operations Training Brunswick Nuclear Harris Nuclear Robinson Nuclear
& Technical Services Project Project Project Manager Brunswick Plant Harris Plant ' Robinson Plant Nuclear Training General Manager General Manager General Manager i
j N N I
' s N
\s l N. 1
'N \ l 4
s
\s i \
l H Curriculum Fossil Nuclear &
1 Administratin Technical Development Operator Simulator Brunswick Harris Robinson ll Training Unit Unit Training Unit Training Unit Training Unit j Training Unit Training Unit l
i
7 Applicants' Exhibit Joint Intervenors' Contention I Docket No. 50-400 I
I Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant ,
FinalSafety Analysis Report Section 13.2 s..- , , c .. -- -- . . . _ .. . , , . . . - - _ , - _ - _ , - , , _ . . . . , _ . ._ , , , _ _ , _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ . , . - , _ . .
SHNPP'FSAR 13.2 TRAINING
- 13.2.1 PLANT STAFF TRAINING PROGRAM ne objective of the SHNPP training program is to develop and maintain an operating organization capable of and responsible for the safe and efficient operation and maintenance of the plant. This train cg program is designed to comply with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.8, " Personnel Selection and_
Training," wi.th exceptions as stated in Section 1.8. He program is designed to provide training based on individual employee experience and intended position in order to fulfill NRC licensing and personnel qualification requirements for the initial plant staff, replacement personnel, and maintenance and upgrading of plant personnel. Fire brigade training is.
described in Section 13.2.3. All plant personnel attend certain orientation programs and specialized courses like emergency preparedness, security, health g physics, and safety courses in addition to participating in specialized training programs as required by their job positions.
13.2.1.1 Program Description This section describes the formal training program for all initial plant management and supervisory personnel, licensed Senior Reactor Operator (SRO),
and licensed Reactor Operator-(RO) candidates, technicians, and general employees. An overview of the program schedule is presented in Figure 13.2.1-1.
13.2.1.1.1- Plant Management and Supervisory Personnel Training The formal training program for the plant management and supervisory personnel provides these personnel with the qualifications necessary to assure that the plant will be operated in a safe and efficient manner. As personnel are-
. designated to fill individual positions, their qualifications are reviewed and training is prescribed such that qualifications required by Section 13.1.3 are met at the time of Operating License issuance or appointment to the position, whichever is later.
Plant supervisory personnel not possessing technical training sufficient for their areas of responsibility will attend specialized training courses as described below. Diesel generator training will be given to operators, operator supervisory personnel, and maintenance supervisors and personnel as discussed in Section 8.3.1.1.1.5.
a) Chemistry - A training course will be taught by the Westinghouse l14 Nuclear Services Division or the equivalent. This pressurized water reactor (PWR) chemist course provides PWR systems training and details of routine-chemistry surveillance, and updates and extends knowledge in specific areas of chemistry. Topics covered in the program are listed below:
- 1) The PWR
. 2) Mathematics review
. 3) Reactor chemistry
- 4) Radiochemistry - theory
- Further information is contained in TMI appendix.
13.2.1-1 Amendment No. 14
SHNPP FSAR
- 5) Radiochemistry - laboratory procedures
- 6) Operating plant training laboratory procedures g4 b) Instrumentation and Control - A training course will be taught by the Westinghouse Nuclear Services Division or the equivalent. This instrumentation and control' engineer course provides an in depth understanding of the instrumentation and control systems used in the Westinghouse PWR.
Topics covered in the program are listed below:
- 1) Introduction to nuclear power plants
- 2) Flux mapping system -
- 3) Nuclear instrumentation system
- 4) Rod control system
- 5) Solid scate protection system
- 6) Radiation monitoring system
- 7) kod position indication system
- 8) Process instrumentation
- 9) System interfaces c) Nuclear Engineering - he Senior Engineer (Reactor) will attend a 14 I training course taught by the Westinghouse Nuclear Services Division or the equivalent. His nuclear engineers' course provides detailed information in those areas for which the Senior Engineer (Reactor) is normally responsible, as well as less detailed discussions of those areas in which he interacts with the remainder of the plant staff. Topics covered in the program are listed below:
- 1) Review of reactor physics
- 2) Review of reactor systems
- 3) Fuel considerations
- 4) Core design
- 5) Initial reactor startup program
- 6) Physics testing
- 7) Measurement techniques and data reduction 14 8) Power distribution analysis
- 9) Plant computer
- 10) Load follow d) Maintenance - A training course will be taught by the Westinghouse Nuclear Services Division or equivalent. This maintenance management program 4 provides familiarization with those aspects of maintenance which are significantly different from that of a fossil-fired plant. Topics covered in the program are listed below:
- 1) Introduction to nuclear power plants
- 2) Radiation protection
- 3) Nuclear power plant equipment maintenance
- 4) Maintenance management i
13.2.1.1.2 Licensed Operator Training ,
The formal training program for licensed SRO and licensed RO candidates '
provides a means of preparing these personnel for station operations and NRC ,
license examinations. The program will be conducted by CP&L personnel with )
l I
13.2.1-2 Amendment No. 14 )
SHNPP FSAR assistance from the Westinghouse Nuclear Services Division or other qualified organizations. h e program is made up of a series of segments which are designed to train personnel with various backgrounds. The following plant personnel (as required to meet qualification requirements) will attend this course prior to initial fuel loading of Unit No. 1.
General Manager (Selected Portions) 14 Manager - Plant Operations (Selected Portions)
Manager - Operations (SRO Candidates)
Operating Supervisors (SRO Candidates)
Shift Foremen (SRO Candidates) l34 Senior Control Operators (SRO Candidates)
Control Operators . (R0 Candidates) l14 Each section of the training program and its duration is detailed below:
a) Basic Auxiliary Operator Training Program - his course consists of nine weeks of classroom training interspersed with nine weeks of structured on-the-job / plant-specific training. H e course is designed to provide l theoretical training in and in plant training to provide reinforcement of the j basic science and technology of power plant operations. His course is 14 i presently available and constitutes a major portion of the training program I for operators at all of the Company's plaats, both nuclear and fossil. The topics covered in the course are listed below:
l') Basic Power Plant Operations
- 2) Essentials of Mathematics (review through algebra)
- 3) Mathematics II Applications
- 4) Plant Science
- 5) Plant Cycle
- 6) Plant Auxiliary Equipment
- 7) Plant Systems
- 8) Basic PWR Plant Operation
- 9) Basic BWR Plant Operation
- 10) Basic Electricity
- 11) Plant Instrtanentation I4
- 12) Basic Water Chemistry
- 13) Fuels and Combustion *
- 14) Boilers *
- 15) Water Treatment
- 16) Turbines
- 17) Environmental Protection Systems *
- 18) Instrument and Control Systems
- 19) Power Generation
- 20) Electrical Systems and Equipment
- 21) Plant Protection
- 22) Gas Turbines and Diesels Examinations are given regularly throughout this phase of training to monitor the trainees' progress. Each trainee must achieve no less than a 80 percent lg4
- Subjects not taken by nuclear or radwaste designated operators.
13.2.1-3 Amendment No. 14
SHNPP FSAR 14 l nverage grade in this course prior to entering the next phase of the training, program.
'h) Nuclear Auxiliary Operator Training Program - This program is designed to provide those persons with little or no nuclear background with the necessary theoretical knowledge to become proficient auxiliary operators. The program consists of approximately four weeks of formal classroom training interspersed with on-the-job training at the trainees' assigned plants. The 14 topics covered are listed below:
- 1) Math Review
- 2) Nuclear Theory
- 14 l . 3) Heat Transfer Radiation Pro'tection 4)
- 5) Instrumentation and Control
- 6) Reactor Protection c) Control Operator Candidate Training Program - This program is designed to follow the N' uclear Auxiliary Operator Course for all new operator personnel with limited or no nuclear experience in nuclear operations. The program cc..sists of approximately ten weeks of classroom training. The topics are listed below:
- 1) Math Review
- 2) Fluid Flow [
- 3) Nuclear Theory (
- 4) Reactor Theory
- 5) Chemistry
- 6) Metallurgy 14 d) SHNPP Cold License Theory Training - This is a formal, approximately ll-week training program. Reviews and examinations will be given regularly to evaluate the effectiveness of the training. To successfully complete this
! training requires a minimum average grade of at least 80 percent. The sob. lect areas covered by this training are listed below:
- 1) Math Review
- 2) Nuclear and Reactor Theory
- 3) Heat Transfer, Fluid Flow, and Thermodynamics i 4) Health Physics, Radiation Protection, and Chemistry
- 5) Pulstar Reactor Training at N. C. State e) Cold License Systems Training and Systems On-The-Job Training - During this 18-week portion of the Cold License Training Program, the students will gain knowledge of actual plant systems configuration and operation. This course consists of nine weeks of systems classroom training alternating with nine weeks of systems research and systems tracing (where possible).
Ef fectiveness of this training will be monitored through written examinations and systems checkouts. A record of systems checkouts will be kept on a Harris Plant Systems Qualification Card which will be completed over the duration of l the course. To maintain standardization, Systems Qualif $ cation Guidelines outlining specific knowledge required for each system have been provided to all students and training personnel. To successfully complete system training ,
I I
l 13.2.1-4 Amendment No. 14 l J
l
.
- I SilNPP FSAR i
All itten examinations.
requires a minimum average grade of 80 percent for wr Plant systems to be system checkouts must have a grade of 'satisf actory.
covered are listed below:
_ System _
- 2) Resctor Vessel and Internals
- 4) Pressurizer
- 5) Reactor Coolant Pumps 6)
Chemical and Volume Control System
- 7) Safety Injection System
- 8) Residual Heat Removal System
- 9) Containment Spray System 10)
Containment Coelant System
- 11) Auxiliary Feedwater System
- 12) Containment Isolation System
- 13) Component Cooling System Normal and Emergency Service Water System 14)
- 15) Hydrogen Recombiners ,
16)
Post Accident Hydrogen Purge System 17)
Post Accident Hydrogen Monitoring System
- 18) Cold Leg Accumulators Control Room Ventilation System
( 19) 20) 21) 22)
Fuel Handling Building Ventilation System Auxiliary Building Ventilation System Boron Thermal Regeneration System g4
- 23) Fuel Pool Cooling System 24)
Instrument and Service Air Systems
- 25) Fuel llandling and Storage .
- 26) Demineralized Water System
- 27) Primary Makeup System
- 28) Boron Recycle System
- 29) Fire Protection System
- 30) Communication System
- 31) Sampling System
- 32) Trace Heating
- 33) Main Steam System
- 34) Auxiliary Steam System
- 35) Condensate and Feedwater Systems
- 36) Condensate Polishers and Demin
- 37) Main Turbine and Generator
- 38) T-C lube Oil 39)
Main Turbine Sealing Steam and Exhaust
- 40) Generator Cas System
- 41) Hydrogen Seal Oil System
- 42) Electro Hydraulic System
- 43) Turbine Supervisory Control System
- 44) Main Condenser Evacuation System
- 45) Steam Dump System
(_ 46)
Moisture Separator Reheaters and Feedwater Heaters
- 47) Cooling Tower
- 48) Ultimate Heat Sink Amendment No. 14 13.2.1-5
SHNPP FSAR
- 49) Essential Services Chilled Water System
- 50) Nonessential Services Chilled Water System
- 51) Waste Process Building Cooling Water System
- 53) Nuclear Instrumentation System
- 55) Steam Generator Water Level Control System '
- 56) Pressurizer Pressure Control System
- 57) Pressurizer Level Control System
- 58) Incore Instruments
- 59) Steam Dump Control System
- 60) Sequencer
- 61) Metal Impact Monitoring System
- 62) Seismic Monitoring System
- 63) Rod Control System
- 64) Offsite Power System
- 65) 6.9 Kv Auxiliary System
. 66) 480 Volt Auxiliary System
- 67) 208/120 Volt AC System
- 68) 120 Volt Uninterruptable AC System
- 69) Standby AC Power Supply (Diesel)
- 70) DC Power System 14 71) Control Room Area Ventilation System
- 72) Fuel Handling Ventilation System
- 73) Auxiliary and Radwaste Area Ventilation System (
- 74) Turbine Building Area Ventilation System (
- 75) Engineered Safety Feature Ventilation System
- 76) Containment Ventilation System
- 77) Control Rod Drive Mechanism Ventilation System
- 78) Containment Atmosphere Purge Exhaust System
- 79) Diesel Generator Fuel Oil System
- 80) Diesel Generator Cooling Water System
- 81) Diesel Generator Air Starting System
- 82) Diesel Generator Lubrication System
- 83) Diesel Generator Combustion Air Intake and Exhaust
- 84) Diesel Engine
- 85) Liquid Waste Systems
- 86) Solid Waste Systems
- 87) Waste cas System
- 88) Radiation Monitoring System
- 89) Subcooled Monitoring System Knowledge of plant systems will be augmented by participating in procedures development, system acceptance testing, and hot functional testing.
f) Cold License Pt acedure, Theory Review, and Simulator Preparatory Training - This approximately five-week course is administered prior to going to the simulator. Review and examinations will be conducted regularly to evaluate training effectiveness. Topics covered in this course include:
- 1) Procedures; . 2) Theory Review; 3) Mitigation of Core Damage; 4) Transient and Safety Analysis; 5) Safety and Control Systems Review; 6) Review of Industry Events; and 7) Station Blackout.
13.2.1-6 Amendment No. 14
I SHNPP FSAR
-[.
A g) Cold License Simulator Training - The Cold License Simulator Training Program will be approximately nine weeks in length (eight weeks minimum). The training will include, but not be limited to: 1) control board familiarization; 2) control functions; 3) procedure usage (including Plant i Emergency Procedure Implementation); 4) transient and accident analysis; and
- 5) control man!pulations during normal, abnormal, and emergency conditions l (include multiple failures). Emphasis will be placed on integrated system response under normal and emergency conditions including control room instrument response, diagnostics, and mitigation of core damage. During the training, shift relief will be included in order to provide experience in the areas of total plant operation and control under normal and emergency conditions in a realistic control room environment. The training staff will monitor progress and perfocmance during the training and instruct as required through periodic critiques. Written and operating examinations patterned after NRC licensing examinations will be administered after completion of simulator training to certify cold license candidates at the Reactor Operator and/or Senior Reactor Operator level.
h) Cold License Review Series and Audit - This portion of the Cold License Training Program will be conducted at the SHNPP site during the period between the completion of hot functional testing and the administering of NRC licensing examinations. The review series consists of approximately 2 weeks of instruction including 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> per day of classroom work with the remainder of the day being used for special instruction, plant tours, and individual study. The topics covered in this lecture series include: l4
- 1) Reactor physics and kinetics
- 2) Reactor control and protection systems
- 3) Health Physics and plant chemistry *
- 4) Technical Specifications
- 6) Normal and emergency operating procedures
- 7) Heat transfer, fluid flow and thermodynamics
- 8) Pressurized Thermal Shock The audit phase of this portion of the Cold License Training Program will consist of written and oral examinations. The purpose of this audit will be to identify any areas requiring additional training effort. Individual or group weak areas identified by this audit will be corrected by intensive training efforts for those involved and training program modifications to minimize recurrence in future classes.
- 1) Cold License Pre-License Review - This approximately four-week phase of 1 train *.ng is designed to improve the weak areas brought out from audits and to bring the License Candidates to a peak knowledge level for the NRC examinations. Plant procedures and subjects are listed below:
- 1) Procedures
- 2) Theory Review
- 3) Mitigating Core Damage
- 4) Transient and Safety Analysis l
- 5) Safety and Control Systems Review t
l 13.2.1-7 i
Amendment No. 14
1 SHNPP FSAR
- 6) Review of Industry Events
- 7) Review of plant and procedure changes since initial training
- 8) Simulator Review j) Other Cold License Training Required - Cold License Candidates will receive training in the following areas:
- 1) Fire Brigade Training
- 2) Emergency Plan Training
- 3) Security Training
- 4) Management Training for Licensed Supervisors (for personnel 14 requiring SRO Licenses) a) Leadership b) Interpersonnel Communication c) Command Responsibility d) Motivation of Personnel e) Problem and Decision Analysis f) Administration Requirements g) Aberrant Behavior Training
- 5) Specific Plant Exparience
- 6) Fuel Handling Operations Training k) Training on Special Low Power Testing - Each licensed reactor operator (RO) or senior reactor operator (SRO) who performs RO or SRO duties shall participate in the initiation, maintenance and recovery from natural f circulation. All RO's and SRO's who perform license duties shall be scheduled for this event." However, if participation is prevented by unforeseen events,
(
the affected RO or SRO shall participate in natural circulation on the simulator, complete.a walk-thru, and review the test in its entirety with an SRO who participated in the test; these actions shall be completed before licensed duties are assumed.
13.2.1.1.3 Shift Engineer (Shift Technical Advisor) Training Shift Engineers'will be provided with training in the following areas, as a minimum:
- 1) Duties and responsibilities of the Shift Engineer
- 2) Plant design and layout
- 3) Accidents analyzed in this FSAR and their consequ?ences
- 4) Thermodynamics and fluid flow
- 5) Integrated plant response
- 6) Capabilities and limitations of plant instruments and controls l
l l
l l
l i
I 13.2.1-8 Amendment No. 14 l J
2 4 .
SHNPP FSAR l
l
[
Additirnally, Shif t Engineers will receive a minimum of two weeks of L. raining on the SHNPP simulator to include asterisked [*] items in Section
-11.2.2.1.2a.
13.2.1.1.4 Technical Personnel Training Technical personnel who require specialized training to properly perform in their areas of responsibility will attend formal training courses in their particular specialities as well as receive on-the-job training at the plant site prior to start-up. 'Ihis training is described below:
a) Radiation Control and Test (RC and Environmental & Chemistry (E&C)
Technician Training - RC and E&C Technicians (not having the qualifications shown in Section 13.1.3.1) will be required to complete the applicabic training programs described below:
- 1) Basic Course Series - RC and E&C Technician III i
a) Basic Chemistry - 2 weeks b) Basic Health Physics - 2 weeks 4 c) Basic Counting Room - I week u
d) Basic Environmental - I week
- 2) Intermediate Course Series - RC and E&C Technician II a) Intermediate Chemistry - I week i b) Intermediate Health Physics - I week c) Intermediate Counting Room - I week i
d) Intermediate Environmental - I week 34 At and above the RC and E&C Technician I level, specialized training will be provided as necessary by the Company or by vendors. Radiation Control and Environmental & Chemistry personnel will also receive on-the-job training by participating in systems checkout and start-up, preparing the laboratories for service, participating in initial radiation surveys, and participating-in the writing, review, and study of radiological and chemical procedure manuals.
b) Instrumentation and Control (I&C) Technician Training - I&C Technicians not having the appropriate qualifications as shown in Section 13.1.3.1 will be required to complete the applicable training programs described below prior to appointment to their respective positions.
- 1) Basic I&C Course Series - I&C Technician III a) Basic Electronic Instrumentation - I week b) Basic Pneumatic Instrumentation - 2 weeks c) Basic Electromechanical Devices - I week L
?
13.2.1-9 Amendment No. 14 b
. SHNPP FSAR
~
- b) Intermediate Pneumatic Instrumentation
- c) Intermediate Electromechanical Devices
- At and above the I&C Technician I Level, specialized training will be provided
,4 as necessary by Carolina Power & Light Company or by vendors. Additionally, Instrumentation and Control Technicians will receive on-the-job training prior to startup by participating in checkout and testing of control circuits, annunciator responses, computer inputs, calibration of controls and instrements, and troubleshooting various equipment problems.
c) Mechanic and diectrirlan Training - Mechanics and Electricians not having the qualifications shown in Section 13.1.3.1 will be required to complete 4-week basic and/or 4-week intermediate courses in their respective crafts. Additionally, Mechanics and Electricians will receive on-the-job training with the equipment on the plant site. Mechanics and Electricians may receive advanced or specialized training for their individual functions as necessary through attendance at CP&L or vendor courses.
d) Radwaste Operator Training - Radwaste Operations personnel not having the qualifications shown in Section 13.1.3.1 will be required to complete a training program in radwaste operations. This program will be conducted by CP&L personnel with assistance from vendors as necessary. The program will consist of the Basic Auxiliary Operator Training Program and applicable 14l portions of the Basic E&RC Training Program described above, augmented by classroom and structured on-the-job training in the areas of radwaste systems and procedures and related technical specifications. Additionally, radwaste operations personnel will receive on-the-job training in their area of responsibility through participating in system checkout and start-up. A 14 qualification card system will be utilized by all Radwaste Operators.
13.2.1.l.5 Auxiliary (Non-Licensed) Operator Training Auxiliary Operators will participate in the Basic Auxiliary Operator Training Program and the Nuclear Auxiliary Operator Training Program as described in Section 13.2.1.1.2. This training, along with a qualification card system, will provide sufficient training and evaluation for these individuals to become qualified Auxiliary Operators.
13.2.1.1.6 General Employee Training All permanently employed plant personnel (those assigned on a day-to-day basis) will participate in a General Employee Training Program consisting of, but not limited to, Radiological Health and Safety Quality Assurance, 14 Industrial Safety, Plant Security, Emergency Plan, Fire Protection, and other appropriate plant plans and procedures. General employee training will be provided to Company personnel at the time of employment at the plant or as soon thereafter as practicable. This training is designed to qualify personnel to be badged for unescorted entry into various parts of the
- This series includes approximately four instructional weeks.
13.2.1-10 Amendment No. 14
SHNPP FSAR operating plant and to be able to function safely and recognize problems that C need to be reported within these areas. There will be annual requalification training and testing to ensure that all plant personnel remain current in the areas of plant plans and procedures.
The Nuclear Operations Department has an orientation program for all new 14 employees that is designed to acquaint the new employee with the policies, procedures, practices of the Company and the Department. Included in this orientation and review of the " Corporate Quality Assurance Program Policy Statement," " Corporate Nuclear Safety Policy," and " Corporate Health Physics Policy." These policy statements are contained in an orientation program manual that is provided to each new employee.
13.2.1.1.7 Previous Nuclear Training Plant operating and supervisory personnel who must qualify for license examlnations are categorized by experience into the following groups.
a) Individuals with no previous nuclear experience b) Individuals with nuclear experience at facilities not subject to Itcensing.
c) Individuals holding or who have held licenses for comparable <
facilities.
( Persons in category A)'above will participate in all portions of the ' Licensed Operator Training Program described in Section 13.2.1.1.2.
Persons in category B) above will receive training as required based upon their experience on a case-by-case basis.
Persons in the third category will receive on-site training to prepare them for the NRC license examination.
13.2.1.2 Coordination with Preoperational Tests and Fuel Loading Figure 13.2.1-1 presents the various training programs in relation to preope6 ;tional testing and fuel loading. In the event that fuel loading is delayed af ter the completion of the formal training program, a continuing review and update program, similar to the requalification program described in Section 13.2.2.1, will be conducted for, as a minimum, those Individuals scheduled for cold license examinations.
L 13.2.1-11 Amendment No. 14
SHNPP FSAR.
. 13.2.2' REPLACEMENT AND RETRAINING A training program will be utilized to maintain the proficiency of the plant . -
operating organization af ter the initial plant start-up. This training program will include, as described below, requalification training for licensed personnel, and replacement training for replacement personnel. ,
13.2.2.1. Licensed Operator Requalification Training Following the initial licensing of cold license candidates, a requalification training program will be initiated to maintain and demonstrate the continued competence of all licensed personnel. This requalification - training program will be conducted on an annual basis and will include pre-planned lectures, on-the-job training, and regular and continuing operator evaluation. The SHNPP sbaulator will be used to fulfill appropriate portions of this retraining program.
13.2.2.1.1 Lectures A minimum of six pre planned lectures will be presented during each requalification cycle. These lectures will be scheduled throughout the year taking into account heavy vacation periods and infrequent operations such as
- refueling periods and forced outages. Lectures may be deferred due to unanticipated shutdowns. However, these lectures shall' be conducted as soon as practicable thereaf ter. Content of the lectures shall take into i
- consideration the categories as listed in 10CFR Part 55, Appendix A, heat-transfer, fluid flow, thermodynamics, mitigation of accidents involving a
(.. degraded core, operating experiences from similar plants and the results of the annual examination. Training aids such as films, video tapes,' and slides may be used and some self-study may be required in conjunction with the ;
lectures. An instructor will present or attend as an auditor at least
- 50 percent of the lecture series.
All licensed individuals will be required ' to attend every pre planned lecture
- except those specifically exempted. Exemptions will be allowed only for individuals scoring greater than 80 percent in the corresponding area on the previous examination.
13.2.2.1.2 On-the-job Training The on-the-job training portion of the requalification program will consist of the following:
.I a) Control Manipulation -Licensed reactor operators shall manipulate and senior reactor operators shall manipulate or direct or evaluate the activities
. of those manipulating the station controls through a minimem of ten reactivity changes during each annual cycle. These manipulations may consist of any of the following, providing that asterisked items are performed annually and all other items are performed on a two year cycle:
3 *1) Start-up to the point of adding heat f} '2) Orderly shutdown 13.2.2-1
.-~-,+s-,,ww- e , - + - --w-, em - ,m ,-=,,,.,,-,-,.rm,e, www w,,-m-n, y,--,, .,
n,-w,-,--,.wey,-n.pn.g---wwwermmn ,
SHNPP FSAR
- 3) Manual steam generator control during start-up and shutdown
- 4) Boration and/or dilution during power operation
- 5) Any significant (>10 percent) power changes in manual rod control'
- 6) Turbine start-up and shutdown
- 7) Loss of coolant (a) including significant steam generator leaks (b) Large and small including leak rate determination (c) Resulting in saturated RCS
- 8) Loss of instrument air
- 9) Loss of electrical power and/or degraded power sources
- 10) Loss of forced coolant flow / natural circulation
~
- 11) Loss of circulating water / condenser vacuum
- 12) Loss of service water 13)_ Loss of shutdown cooling
~14)- ' Loss of component cooling system or CCW to an individual component
- 15) Loss of normal feedwater or normal . feedwater system failure i- *16) Loss of all feedwater (normal and emergency)
- 17) Loss of protective system channel
. 18) Control rod misalignment or drop
- 19) Inability to drive control rods
- 20) Conditions ' requiring emergency bocation
- 21) High activity in reactor coolant
- 22) Turbine or generator trip
.23) Malfunction of automatic control system (s) which affect U reactivity
- 24) Malfunction of CVCS system l
- 25) Reactor trip 13.2.2-2
SHNPP FSAR
/ '26) Main steam line break (inside or'outside containment)
- 27) Nuclear instrumentation failure (s)
These control manipulations may be performed on the SHNPP simulator.
.h) Knowledge of Plant Systems - Individuals licensed as reactor operators 14 and senior reactor operators shall demonstrate an understanding of the operation of controls and equipment and shall'be familiar with the operating
, procedures in each area for which they are licensed.
Demonstration methods may include any of the following:
- 1) -Manipulation of the systems and their associated equipment.
- 2) A walk-through of the procedural steps required to start, stop or change conditions of the system.
- 3) Use of the SHNPP simulator
- c) Knowledge of Facility Design, Procedure, and Facility License Changes: Licensed reactor operators and senior reactor operators shall be made aware of safety-related facility design changes that affect station operation, operating procedure changes and facility license changes.
l Demonstration methods include any of the following:
f
- 1) Brief lectures conducted by the Operating Supervisor or other appropriate personnel.
t i
- 2) Staff meetings
! 3) Written communications to each licensed individual from facility management
- 4) Explanation of major changes as part of the pre-planned lecture series
'd) Knowledge of Emergency Operating Procedures: Licensed reactor operators and senior reactor operators shall review the contents of emergency operating procedures periodically such that knowledge of these procedures is maintained.
Demonstration methods may include any of the following:
d
- l) Actual performance under emergency conditions
- 2) Drills using the SHNPP simulator
- 3) A walk-through of the procedural steps necessary to cope with the situation i
13.2.2-3 Amendment No. 14
SHNPP FSAR
- 4) Brief lectures conducted by the Operating Supervisor or other appropriate personnel
- 5) Self-study combined with items 1) through 4) above.
13.2.2.1.3 Evaluation The evaluation program for licensed personnel will include the following:
a) Annual Written Examination: Annual examinations comparable in scope and degree of dif ficulty to an NRC examination shall be given to each licensed reactor operator and senior reactor operator. The examination will contain categories of examination questions as follows:
- 1) Theory and principles of operation
- 2) 11 eat transfer, fluid flow and thermodynamics
- 3) General and specific operating characteristics
- 4) Plant instrumentation and control systems
- 5) Plant protection systems
( '; Engineered safety systems
- 7) Normal and emergency operating procedures
- 8) Radiation control and safety
- 9) Technical specifications
- 10) Applicable portions of Title 10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations
- 11) Operating experience from similar plants A grade of less than 70 percent in any category shall require accelerated requalification in.that category. A grade of less than 80 percent overall requires accelerated requalification in all categories graded less than 80 percent.
b) Annual Observation and Written Evaluation: Obse rva tion and evaluation of the performance of licensed reactor operators and senior reactor operators by supervisors or training staf f members will include evaluation of performance during actual or simulated emergency conditions. Observation and evaluation of the performance of licensed personnel during simulated emergency conditions may be conducted by simulator training staf f personnel.
Discussions of actions taken or to be taken during emergency situations may be used as evaluation tools in lieu of or in addition to the above methods. Any licensed reactor operator or senior reactor operator given an unsatisfactory I overall evaluation shall require accelerated requalification. l l
l 13.2.2-4 i
l
SHNPP FSAR 13.2.2.1.4 Accelerated Requalification Persons requiring accelerated requalification as a result of annual evaluation shall not perform licensed duties until sucessfully completing the program.
Accelerated requalification shall be given in the categories required or areas identified in the annual observation and written evaluation. The Training Supervisor will tailor the scope and duration of the accelerated program to the individuals' demonstrated deficiencies. Successful completion of the program shall be measured by a reexamination of individual categories, repeating an entire written annual exacination or reevaluation by observation or oral examination. Successful completion of an accelerated requalification program shall be by the grade criteria in Section 13.2.2.1.3.
13.2.2.1.5 Training Personnel Training personnel who are licensed are exempt from the provisions of Sectien 13.2.2.1, for which they have prLaary responsibility for administering. For example, individuals responsible for preparing, administering, and grading the annual written examination will be credited with successfully completing the examination.
13.2.2.2 Nonlicensed Personnel Retraining Nonlicensed personnel shall receive retraining on the topics listed in bection 13.2.1.1.4 on a regularly scheduled basis. In addition, retraining
( shall include familiarization with plant operating experience, modifications and design changes, revision to procedures and indoctrination in new procedures applicable to the personnel involved.
13.2.2.3 Replacement Training Replacement training is conducted to fill vacancies and prepare individuals for increased responsibility in the supervisory, technical, operating, and naintenance staffs. Replacement personnel will receive training in areas in which they are not already qualified by reason of experience, technical training, and/or on-the-job training.
Radiological Control and Test Technicians, Instrumentation and Control Technicians, Electricians, Mechanics, and Radwaste Operators will receive general training in their job areas as part of the Company craf t development prograu. This program provides sufficient training, as described in Section 13.2.1.1.3 to enable newly hired personnel to advance to become competent and proficient craf tsmen.
Auxiliary operators may eventually qualify to enter a " hot" License training program designed to prepare them to become licensed Control Operators.
In the overall program, replacement personnel will receive training comparable to that received by the initial staff. This 9111 ensure that the required level of proficiency is maintained in all positions.
L 13.2.2-5
l
. :* l l
)
^
SHNPP FSAR 13.2.3 FIRE BRIGADE TRAINING 13.2.3.1 Fire Brigade Members l
13.2.3.1.1 Las truction 1
. Instructions in the copics listed below will be administered to each individual prior to assignment as a fire brigade member. The instructions will include:
a) Identification of the location and types of fire hazards that could produce fires within the plant, including identification of the areas where breathing air will be required.
b) Identification of the location of installed and portable fire fighting equipment in each area, and familiarization with the layout of the plant, t
including access and regress routes to each area.
c) Proper use of available equipment, and the correct methods of fighting the following types of fire: electrical, cable and cable trays, hydrogen, flammable liquids, waste / debris, and record file.
d) Indoc:rination to the plant fire fighting plan, with coverage of each individual's responsibilities and their changes.
e) Proper use of breathing, communication, lighting, and portable ventilation equipment.
f) A detailed review of procedures, with particular emphasis on what equipment must be used in particular areas.
g), A review of the latest modifications to the facility, procedures, fire fighting equipment, and fire fighting plan.
h) The proper method of fighting fires inside buildings and tunnels.
Refresher instructions will be provided to all fire brigade sembers on a regularly scheduled basis of not less than four sessions a year with sessions to be repeated at.a frequency of not more than 2 years. Instructions will be provided by qualified individuals knowledgeable and experienced in fighting the fires that could occur in the plant with the equipment available at the plant. Special instructions will be provided for fire brigade leaders in directing and coordinating fire fighting activities.
13.2.3.1.2 Practice Sessions I
_ Practice sessions will be held fer fire brigade members to teach them the proper method of fighting various types of fires and to provide them with practice in extinguishing actual fires. These sessions will be conducted at f acilities sufficiently remote from the nuclear plant so as not to endanger safety-related equipment, with the sessions provided at regular intervals not exceeding 1 year. These practice sessions will be conducted requiring fire l2 13.2.3-1 Amendment No. 2
. , . , . , _ - . . , _ _ - _ . _ . .,.m... , . - . . .__g., , ,
,y,_,,.m .%, , . . - . _
_-.-.,.,y. . . - . ,
1 SENPP FSAR 4
brigade members to don protective quipment, including emergency breaching 2 *Pparatus.
13.2.3.1.3 Drins Drills win be performed in the plant so that the fire brigade will remain
, proficient in fire fighting techniques. These drills will include:
a) The simulated use of equipment for the various situations and types of fires which could reasonably occur in each safety-related area.
b) Conformance, where possible, to the established pianu fire fighting i plans.
Operation of fire fighting equipment, where practical, including c) self-contained breathing apparatus, communication equipment, and portable
- and instaned ventilation equipment.
4 Drills will be performed at regular intervals, not to exceed three sonths, for each fire brigade to allow members of the brigade to train as a team. At least one drill per year for each fire brigade will be unannounced to determine the fire readiness of the plant fire brigade and plant fire
! protection systems and equipment. Drins win be planned to establish /
l training objectives and win be critiqued to determine how well the training objectives were met. This critique will, as a miniaua, assess: fire alara
(
- effectiveness; response time; selection, placement and use of equipment'; the
- fire brigade chief's direction of the fire fighting effort; and each fire brigade member's response to the emergency.
A drill win be held annually at which offsite fire department participation win be requested.
13.2.3.2 other Station amployees 13.2.3.2.1 Instruction for All Non-Fire Brigade Members Osca a year all employees will be instructed on the fire protection plan, evacuation routes, and procedures for reporting a fire. Security personnel win be instructed in entry procedures for offsite fire departments, crowd control for people exiting the stations, and procedures for reporting
. potential fire hasards observed when touring the facility. Instruction will also be given to au shif t personnel who will assist the fire brigade in the event of a fire. Temporary employees win be given instructions to f amiliarize them with the plant's evacuation signals, evacuacion routes, and procedures for reporting fires.
l-l 13.2.3.2.2 Drills A plant evacuation drill will be performed annually.
13.2.3-2 Amendment No. 2
t SHNPP FSAR l
. 13.2.3.3 Fire Protection Staff Fire protection staff members will be introduced to a program of specialized training. Instructions for the staff will include:
a) . Analysis of building layout and system design with respect to fire protection requirements, including consideration of potential hazards associated with postulated design basis fires.
b) Design and maintenance of fire detection suppression and extinguishing systems.
c) Fire protection techniques and procedures.
d) Training in manual firefighting techniques and procedures for plant personnel and the fire brigade.
13.2.3.4 Offsite Fire Departments-In accordance with commitments for the use of offsite fire departments, the training offered these offsite fire fighting personnel will include courses in 2 basic radiation principles and practices. Additional training will be offered co familiarize them with typical radiation hazards that may be encountered
( when fighting fires at a nuclear power plant.
13.2.3.5 Construction Personnel Training for construction personnel will include instructions in reporting fires, responding to alar =s, and locating evacuation routes.
13.2.3.6 Initial Training The initial' fire protection training program will be completed prior to receipt of fuel at the site. The Emergency Plan implementing procedures for fire protection will be completed at least three months prior to receipt of fuel. Sufficient fire protection drills will be performed immediately prior to fuel receipt to provide assurance that the plant staff is adequately trained to cope with fire-related emergencies.
13.2.3-3 Amendment No. 2
SHNPP FSAR
.=T .
13.2.4 APPLICABLE NRC DOCUMENTS The applicable portions of the NRC regulations, RG's, and reports listed below will be used.in provi. ding guidance in the training of plant
- ~ ~ ~
personnel.
a, ..;,.. . . -- . ..
a) - ;.10CFR50,. ." Licensing of Production and Utilization Fucilities"
-b) 10CFR55, " Operators blicenses" ' . .: - -
c) ** r 10CFR19, " Noti ~ces, Instructions , and Reports to Workers; Inspeetions"- .~ zu :. - -
.:. :+.. . - - . .: - ir. . . -::
d).- RG 1.8, " Personnel Selection' and Training" e) RG 1.'101, '" Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants" RG 1.120', " Fire Pr6tect' ion' Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plants"
~
f) g) ,, ,RG 8.2, "Guid_e for Administrative Practices in Radiation Monitoring" ~ ~ '
h) --- R.8.8, "Information Relevant to Maintaining Occupational .
Radiation Exposure As Iow As Is Reasonably Achievable (Nuclear Power Reactors)" -*
i) RG 8.10. " Operating Philosophy for Maintaining Occupational Radiation Exposure.s..:As. low As Is Reasonably Achievable"
RG 8.13, " Instruction Concerning -Prenatal Radiation Exposure" j) -
. : s.
.~ . . : *. ~ -..- .
k) Utility Sta_f fing and Training for Nuclear Power, " WASH-1130",
revised June' 1973 "'
~
'1) ,.., , NRC' Operator Licensinig Citi'ds,NUREG-0094, ' July ,,1976. . _ , ,
R. Denton's NRC Letter. of March 28, 1980, Subject Qualifications of
~
m) _H.
. Reactor. Operators , . .e .-
n) NUREG 0737 " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements."
o) NUREG 0694 "TMI Related Requirements for New Operating Licenses."
p) NRC Generic Iatter 81-04 " Emergency- Procedures and Training for Station Blackout Events."
q) RG 8.27, " Radiation Protection Training for Personnel at Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants."
5 r) RG 8.29, " Instruction Con erning Risks from Occupational Radiation f - Exposure" F
(
d 13.2.4-1 Amendment No. 5
l Applicants' Exhibit Joint Intervenors' Contention I Docket No. 50-400 l
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant FinalSafety Analysis Report Sections 13.0 - 13.1.3.2 and Sections 13.4.1 - 13.5.2.2
I CHAPTER 13 13.0 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS e
l O
I
I brtner YbAn l
1 l
1 CHAPTER 13 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS .
SECTION TITLE PAGE 13.0 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS 13.1.1-1 13.1 ORGANE ATIONAL STRUCTURE OF APPLICANT 13.1.1-1
-13.1.1 MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT OPGANE ATION 13.1.1-1 13.1.1.1 Design and Operating Responsibilities 13.1.1-1 13.1.1.2 Organizational Arrangement 13.1.1-6 13.1.1.3 Qualifications 13.1.1-18 13.1.2 OPERATING ORGANE ATION 13.1.2-1 13.1.2.1 Introduction 13.1.2-1 13.1.2.2 Personnel Functions. Responsibilities , and Authorities 13.1.2-1 13.1.2.2.1 General Manager - Harris Plant Operations 13.1.2-1 13.1.2.2.2 Administration Unit 13.1.2-1 13.1.2.2.3 Plant Operations Unit 13.1.2-2 13.1.2.2.3.1 Environmental & Radiation Control Subunit 13.1.2-3 13.1.2.2.3.2 Maintenance Subunit _
13.1.2-4 13.1.2.2.3.3 Operations Subunit 13.1.2-5 13.1.2.2.4 Startup and Test Unit 13.1.2-8 13.1.2.2.5 Regulatory Compliance 13.1.2-10 13.1.2.2.6 ,
Technical Support Unit 13.1.2-10 13.1.3 QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT PERSONNEL 13.1.3-1 13.1.3.1 Minimum Qualifications 13.1.3-1 13.1.3.2 Qualification of Plant Personnel 13.1.3-1 L
13-1 Amendment No. 15
anarr rann
- CHAPTER 13 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TITLE SECTION 13.2.1-1 13.2 TRAINING 13.2.1-1 13.2.1 PLANT STAFF TRAINING PROGRAM Program Description 13.2.1-1 13.2.1.1 13.2.1.1.1 Plant Management. and Supervisory Personnel Trainirig 13.2.1-1 Licensed Operator Training 13.2.1-2 13.2.1.1.2 13.2.1.1.3 Shif t Engineer (Shif t Technical Advisor)
Trainirg 13.2.1-8 2 13.2.1-9 13.2.1.1.4 . Technical Personnel Trainirs Au.iliary (Non-Licensed) Operator Trainirs 13.2.1-10 13.2.1.1.5
" 13.2.1-10 13.2.1.1.6 General Employee Training Previous Nuclear Training 13.2.1-11 13.2.1.1.7 13.2.1.2 Coordination with Preoperational Tests 13.2.1-11 and Fuel Loadits 13.2.2-1 13.2.2 Er.PLACENENT AND RETRAINING Licensed Operator Requalification Trainirg 13.2.2-1 13.2.2.1 13.2.2-1 13.2.2.1.1 Lectures 13.2.2-1 13.2.2.1.2 On-the-Job Trainir6 13.2.2-4 13.2.2.1.3 Evaluation Accelerated Requalification 13.2.2-5 13.2.2.1.4 Training Personnel 13.2.2-5 13.2.2.1.5 Nonlicensed Personnel Retraining 13.2.2-5 13.2.2.2 Replacement Training 13.2.2-5 13.2.2.3 FIRE BRIGADE TRAINING 13.2.3-1 13.2.3 Amendment No. 15
SHNPP FSAR CHAPTER 13 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS' l
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 13.2.3.1 Fire Brigade Members -13.2.3-1 13.2.3.1.1 Instruction 13.2.3-1 13.2.3.1.2 Practice Sessions 13.2.3-1 13.2.3.1.3 Drills 13.2.3-2 13.2.3.2 ,
Other Station Employees 13.2.3-2 13.2.3.2.1 Instruction for All Non-Fire Brigade Members 13.2.3-2 13.2.3.2.2 Drills 13.2.3-2 13.2.3.3 Fire Protection Staff 13.2.3-3 13.2.3.4 Offsite Fire Departments 13.2.3-3
( 13.2.3.5 13.2.3.6 Construction Personnel Initial Training 13.2.3-3 13.2.3-3 13.2.4 APPLICABLE NRC DOCUMENTS 13.2.4-1 J.
13.3 EMERGENCY PLANNING 13.3-1 13.4 REVIEW AND AUDIT _
13.4.1-1 13.4.1 ON-SITE REVIEW 13.4.1-1 13.4.2 INDEPENDENT REVIEW 13.4.2-1 13.4.3 AUDIT PROGRAM 13.4.3-1 13.5 PLANT PROCEDURES 13.5.1-1 13.5.1 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES 13.5.1-1 13.5.1.1 Conformance with Reguia ory Guide 1.33 13.5.1-1 L
13-111 Amendment No. 13
.- -- , - , - - , n,-,,
SHNPP FSAR l
1 CHAPTER 13 CONDUCT OF OPERATION $ ,
TABLE OF CONTEh"fS
-SECTION TITLE PAGE 13.5.1.2 Preparation of Procedures 13.5.1-1 -
13.5.1.3 Procedures ,
13.5.1-1 13.5.2 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES 13.5.2-1 13.5.2.1 Control Room Operating Procedures 13.5.2-1
~
13.5.2.2 Other Procedures 13.5.2-7 13.6 INDUSTRIAL SECURITY 13.6.1-1 13.6.1 PRELIMINARY PLANNING 13.6.1-1 13.6.2 SECURITY PLAN 13.6.2-1
- 13.6.2.1 Industrial Security Plan 13.6.2-1 13.6.2.2 Safeguards Contingency Plan 13.6.2-1 13.6.2.3 Security Personnel Training and Qualification Plan 13.6.2-1 s
13-iv Amendment No. 13
.. _. . . _ . . _ = _ _ _ . . . ._ _ . . _ _ _
SHNPP FSAR CHAPTER 13 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLC PAGE
(
, 13.1.1-1 EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE SUMMARIES FOR KEY PERSONNEL SUPPORTING SHNPP (AE OF 1984) 13.1.1-80 13.1.2-1 PROJECTED SKNPP STAFF LOADING 13.1.2-12 13.1.3-1 JAMES L. WILLIS 13.1.3-2 13.l.3-2 CHARLES R. GIBSON 13.1.3-3 13.1.3-3 JOSEPH R. SIPP 13.1.3-5
- 13.1.3-4 LLOYD R. HANCOCK 13.1.3-6 1 13.1.3-5 EDWARD M. ST'UDEL' 13.1.3-7 13.1.3-6 CHARLES S. 50HANAN 13.1.3-8
^
13.1.3-7 HELM LIPA 13.1.3-10 13.1.3-8 CLAYTON S. HINNANT 13.1.3-12 13.1.3-9 L. J. WOODS 13.1.3-14 13.1.3-10 STEVEN L. MABE. 13.1.3-15 13.l.3-!! GIRARD T. LEW 13.1.3-17 13.1.3-12 JAMES L. DORITY 13.1.3-18 13.1.3-13 ROBERT B. VAN METRE 13.1.3-20 13.1.3-14 W. H. BATTS,'JR. 13.1.3-21 13.1.3-15 TERRY C. MORTON 13.I.3-22 13.1.3-16 DAVID B. WATERS 13.1.3-24 13.1.3-17 JAMES P. THOMPSON III 13.1.3-26 13.1.3-18 CARY S. BRINEY 13.1.3-27 13.1.3-19 RICHARD T. CARNER 13.1.3-28
(; 13.1.3-20 DANNY G. BATTEN 13.1.3-29 13-v Amendment No. 13
, _ , - . .-. . . _ _ . . - . _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . ~ , - - . . - . . , - _ _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ , . . . , . . . , , , , ~ _ _ . , _ _ , _ ._
SHNPP FSAR CHAPTER 13 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
TABLE TITLE PAGE 13.1.3-21 JAMES E. BROORS 13.1.3-30 13.1.3-22 JERRY MAC BRADLEY 13.1.3-31 13.1.3-23 JOSEPH M. COLLINS 13.1.3-32 13.1.3-24 JOHN W. DIGBY 13.1.3-34 13.1.3-25 AL POLAND 13.1.3-35 13.1.3-26 JAMES W. MCDUFFEE 13.1.3-36 9
13.1.3-27 L. P. CAPPS 13.1.3-37 13.1.3-28 E. E. JOHNSON 13.1.3-38 i
13.1.3-29 RONALD E. GURGANUS 13.1.3-39 13.1.3-30 R. E. BUTLER 13.1.3-40 i
l 1
l 13-vi Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR CHAPTER 13 '
CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE 13.1.1-1 Operations and Engineering and Construction Organization 13.1.1-2 Power Supply and Engineering & Construction Groups Organization 13.1.1-3 ,
Nuclear Generation Group Organization 13.1.1-4 Harris Nuclear Project Organization 13.1.1-5 Robinson Nuclear Project Organization ,
13.1.1-6 Nuclear Engineering and Licensing Department Organization 13.1.1-7 Nuclear Plant Construction Department Organization 13.1.1-8 Engineering & Construction Support Services Department Organization
?
13.1.1-9 Fossil Generation & Power Transmission Group Organization
~
13.1.1-10 Fossil Plant Engineering & Construction Department
- Organization 13.1.1-11 Fossil Operation Department Organization ,
.13.1.1-12 System Operations Department Organization 13.1.1-13 Transmission & Communication Planning, Engineering &
Construction Deperteent Organization 13.1.1-14 Operations Support Groap Organization 13.1.1-15 Fuel Departr.ent Organization 13.1.1-16 Materials Management Department Organization 13.1.1-17 Operations Training & Technical Services Department Organization 13.1.1 18 Brunswick Nuclear Project Organization 13.1.1-19 Corporate Quality Assurance Department Organization 13.1.1-20 Corporate Nuclear Safety and Research Departnert Organization 13-vii Amendment No.13
SHHPF FSAR CHAPTER 13 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
F ICURE TITLE 13.1.2-1 Harrie Nuclear Project Organization 13.1.2-2 Facility Organization 13.2.1-1 Training Schedule 13.3.2-1 (Deleted by Amendment No. 4) 13.3.2-2 (Deleted by Amendment No. 4) 13.3.4-1 (Deleted by Amendment No. 4) 13.3.4-2 (Deleted by Amendment No. 4) 13.3.4-3 (Deleted by Amendment No. 4) 13.3.5-1 (Deleted by Amendment No. 4) ,
13.3.5-2 (Deleted by Amendment No. 4) 13.3.5-3 (Deleted by Amendment No. 4) 13.3.5-4 (Deleted by Amendment No. 4) 13.3.7-1 (Deleted by Amendment No. 4) 13.3.7-2 (Deleted by Amendment No. 4) .,
13.3.7-3 (Deleted by Amendment No. 4) 13.3.7-4 (Deleted by Amendment No. 4) 13.4.2-1 Independent Safety Review Groups ,
13.4.3-1 Corporate Quality Assurance Audit Unit 13.5.1-1 Control Roon Area Designated "At The Controls" 13-viii Amendment No. 15
SHNPP FSAR 13.0 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS 13.1 ORCANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF APPLICANT
- 11.1.1 MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATION 13.t.l.1 Design and Operating Responsibilities The following paragraphs summarize the degree to which design, construction, and preoperational activities have been accosplished, and describe specific responsibilities and activities relative to technical support for operations.
a) Design and Construction Activities (Project Phase):
- 1) Principle Site-Related Engineering Work (a) A preoperational meteorological monitoring program was established at the site on March 23, 1973. The instrumentation system was specified by Research Triangle Institute following' review and approval by CP&L. Operation, maintenance, and data processing were conducted by the CP&L meteorological staff.
System modification, in accordance with PSAR commitments were implemented in January 1979 by. CP&L meteorologists.
(b) Geology and Seismology - The primary responsibility for geological and seismological investigation was assigned to Ebasco Services with Assistance from CP&L consultant, Dr. J. L.
( Stuckey. As a subcontractor to Ebasco Services, Dames & Moore conducted seismological studies and derived the seismic design parameters including the design response spectra.
(c) Hydrology - All hydrologic data, analyses, and conclusions were developed by Ebasco Services. They were reviewed and approved by CP&L.
(d) Demography - The Research Triangle Institute, a private consulting company, and CP&L performed demographic studies relative to population,~ size, density, and distribution within 50 miles of the plant, as discussed in Sections 2.1.3, and 2.2.
(e) Environmental Effects - Baseline environmental monitoring programs were initiated at the SHNPP site for CP&L by Aquatic
! Control, Inc., aus ecological consulting company, during April, 1972. Terrestrial biology studies were conducted by Aquatic Control, Inc. through June, 1974, and aquatic ecology studies continued through March, 1975. After these dates, CP&L staff biologists assumed responsibility for environmental studies.
Designs of environmental programs through December,1978, are discussed in:
- Further information is contained in the TMI Appendix.
(
13.1.1-1 Amendment No. 13
w == s o,m Carolina Power & Light Company, prepared by Aquatic Control, Inc.
Baseline Biota of the Shearon' Harris Nuclear Power Plant Area, North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C. - undated and prepared in 1974.
Carolina Power & Light Company, prepared by Aquatic Control, Inc.
Baseline Biota of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Study An es, June 1973 - May, 1974. Raleigh, N.C., 1975.
Carolina Power & Light Company, prepared by Aquatic Control, Inc.
Aquatic Baseline Biota of the Shearon Harris Power Plant Study Area, North Carolina, 1974 - 1975. Raleigh, N.C., 1976.
Carolina Power & Light Company. , Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Pre-Construction Monitoring Report, Terrestrial Biology (June, 1974 -
January, 1978), Water Chemistry (1972 - 1977). Raleigh, N.C., 1978.
Carolina Power & Light Company. Annual Report: Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Baselinet Monitoring Program, Aquatic Biology Unit, 1976 and 1977. Raleigh, N.C., 1978.
Carolina Power & Light Company. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Annual Environmental Monitoring Report, Water Chemistry, Aquatic Biology, Terrestrial Biology, 1978.. Raleigh, N.C., 1979.
In January, 1978, the SHNPP Construction Permit Biological Monitoring Program was issued in compliance with the Construction Permit requirements. Environmental monitoring programs described in that document are performed by CP&L staff biologists and will continue until 15 l one year af ter the plant is in operation. Reporting requirements are limited to maintaining current data and procedures on file for access by the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
- 2) Design of Plant and Ancillary Systems - An evaluation of 15l engineering progress for the plant as of September 30, 1983 indicated overall completion of 94.3 percent.
- 3) Review of Approval of Plant Design Features - Design control and review of plant design features are performed in accordance with the Engineering and Quality Assurance Progras approved by the NRC during the Construction Permit Review.
- 4) Development of Safety Analysis Reports - Overall responsibili'-r for the preparation of the Final Safety Analysis Report rests wit' CP&L. Preparation of individual sections was assigned to the cognizant technical groups within CP&L, Westinghouse, and Ebasco Services, Inc.
- 5) Review and Approval of Material and Component Specifications - All safety-related project specifications are reviewed in accordance with the Engineering and Construction Ouality Assurance Program approved by the NRC during the Construction Permit Review.
- 6) Procurement of Materials and Equipment - Approximately 15 99.0 percent of the specifications for material and equipment for the plant has been awarded.
..-2 Amendment No. 15
SHNPP FSAR
- 7) Management and Review of Construction Activities - Carolina Power !
C & Light Company construction management has performed the following management and control activities at the construction site since the l
start of construction on January 26, 1978.
- 8) Engineering Modifications and Design Configuration Control for the i Operating Unit - Engineering modifications and design configuration control. for the ope.'ating unit will be the responsibility of the Harris Plant Engineering Section. The Section will obtain detailed design
' modifications required by the plant and will focus on generation and maintenance of design documents (drawings, specifications, design basis documents, etc.). -
Carolina Power & Light Company provided the construction management for the construction phase of the project. The actual construction of the power block and associated facilities is being performed by Daniel Construction Company as a constructor under CP&L direction. Site excavation, main and auxiliary das construc. a ion, land clearing, containment liner erection, cooling tower construction, and numerous other work items are being executed by other companies under direct contract to CP&L.
i As construction manager, CP&L is responsible for job coordination and d
conusunication, plan ting, cost control, inspection, quality assurance, i accounting, warehousing, procurement, site engineering, milestone
< scheduling, and este)11shing and monitoring the master schedule. This
< construction management responsibility includes making the actual determination as to the rate and sequence of construction as well as the determination as to which portions are better handled by contracts separate from the main constructor contract. In addition, CP&L' retains and exercises authority to approve or disapprove constructor recommendations on construction methods and force levels, provides the communications link between the designer (Ebasco) and constructor (Daniel and others) and controls site delivery dates.
i.
The general office Nuclear Plant Construction staff supports construction by: providing administrative support; providing contractor supervision and site coordination for short-term construction projects; providing
' construction engineering review and contract administration which occurs prior to site management control of associated projects; coordinating engineering activities relative to relocations of existing facilities at the site; preparing construction proposals, evaluating bids, preparing contracts and participating in contract administration; and planning, scheduling, and monitoring costs for materials and equipment use during construction.
b) Preoperational Activities
^ '
- 1) Development of Human Engineering Design Objectives and Design Phase Review of Propo' sed Control Room Layout - The human engineering ( 15 concepts and objectives used in the control room design were developed by Westinghouse and Ebasco engineers, and CP&L operations personnel.
13.1.1-3 Amendment No. 15
y i
l SENFP FSAR l
l Designers and design reviewers relied on past design and operating l experience in arriving at the final control room configuration and !
panel arrangement. l
' The general criteria used in developing the control room . configuration l and' panel arrangement follow:
(a) The appearance of the Control Room and the panels should be designed for most effective situation analysis maximizing human i
performance and limiting operators discomfort and fatigue. -
(b) .Fanel-mounted equipment having similar functions should be similar in appearance. Where practicable, hardware should be identical.
(c) Groupings of related panel-mounted equipment are arranged for close proximity of components on a system basis or op2 rational function. Such groupings minimise operator error and facilitate efficient control and interface. These functionally arranged displays include: Individual rod position indicators arranged to easily ascertain their proper alignment, valve and pump status lights and indicators by which the operator can analyze any given situation.
(d) Control room lighting is provided with group switching so as to reduce the illumination level of the Control Room to 75 percent, 50 percent and 25 percent of maximum (125 f t.-cdl.) to limit the glare on the indicator and to read identification of control panel equipment engrsving without eye strain.
(e) Standard abbreviations are used for nameplate engraving on all panel. mounting component.
(f) The structural shape of the control panels should enable the operator to easily read the recorders, indicators, and annunciator windows. The operator should not have to lean across the panel a o reach controls.
These general design objectives were implemented by the use of many
' specific design features, examples of which follow:
(a) The control panels are divided into nine functional sections. The process control and Engineered Safety Features (ESF) systems are contained on the Main Control Board (panels A1, i
A2). Reactor Coolant System is on section C. Non-ESF Electrical Distribution and HVAC systems controls and indication are mounted on the NCB, Panels AA, Bl. 82, BB, D1, D2. .
+
(b) Three distinct types of horns are used. One audible alars for first annunciator, 2nd audible alarm for normal NSSS/ BOP systems and ring-back (chine) audible alarm.
l 13.1.1-4 Amendment No. 13
.____.a._ _ _
l SHNPP FSAR
( *
(c) On all panels, to the extent possible, related idicators, recorders, control switches, and annunciator windows for the individual systems are mounted to one panel. This simplifies locating this equipment by the operator and minimizes error.
(d) Indicator scales are marked with multiplication factors of X10, X100, etc.
(e) Post-accident monitoring indicators and recorders are
, differentiated: from the others by their yellow colored bezel.
(f) Where a parameter is measured by two or more channels, redundant indicators are mounted close by in ord6r to enable the operator to compare redundant readings and disregard erroneous readings.
(g) Standardized means for identification were used throughout the plant for all the equipment using nameplate engravings, annunciator windows, control switches, and controllers, indicators, and recorders.
(h) Functional identification on the control switch modules is kept uniform.,
(i) Panel-mounted equipment having similar functions are identical in make and model (e.g., NSSS and BOP 5 in. edgewise
( meters are the same make and model. This is also true of the control switches used for breaker control, equipment actuation, meter display selection, etc.).
(j) The arrangement of the control panels was developed using the average size of man to develop height requirements. The average operator will easily be able to reach all controls without leaning over the panels. Recorders and indicators are located to provide easy and accurate reading of instruments as far as practicable.
The upper section of the panels where the annunciator windows are ,
mounted is tilted downward 15 degrees to minimize glare.
(k) Containment and site evacuation alarm switches are provided on the MCB Section "C". These swite,hes are mounted separately from the other control switches area on section C which the operators use during normal operation.
(1) A separate manual reactor trip switch is provided on the vertical Section C and A1. Section "C" switch has TRIP /CLOSE and Section Al has TRIP function.
(a) A turbine switch is provided on the vertical Section Bl.
(n) All the control switches are labeled with the system prefix in order to identify the control easily.
l 13.1.1-5 Amendment No. 13
-- _ _ _ ~ - -- . - - .. - - . _ - . . - .
SENFP FSAR In addition to the human engineering-related objectives and features incorporated in the design, an extensive formal review of panel design was performed by CP&L, Westinghouse and Ebasco engineers and CP&L
} operating personnel. Several meetings were held to review the mark-up of the control panele for acceptability, primarily from a human engineering standpoint. Carolina Power & Light Company preferences and -
the past operating experience of Ebasco and Westinghousa were i incorporated. A simulator was developed by CP&L and used as an adjust to the design as well as for operator training.
- 2) Development and Implementation of Staff Recruiting and Training Programs - The training programs to be utilized for SENPr are described in Section 13.2. This program is being implemented in accordance with the schedule indicated in that Section. Recruiting of personnel to fill positions is currently taking place. A staffing plan for SENFP is contained in Section 13.1.2.
, 3) Development of Plans for Initial Testing - The initial test program for SENPP, including schedule, is described in Chapter 14.
- 4) Development of Plant Maintenance Programs - Organitation of the resident maintenance forces is described in Section 13.1.2.
c) Technical Support for Operations ,
- 1) The engineering staffs of several CP&L departments provide the
}. technical services to support the testing and operation of SHNPP. The ,
Corporate Nuclear Safety and Research Department provides technical '
support in the areas of health physics and nuclear safety. The Nuclear Engineering & Licensing Department and Harris Plant Engineering Section 1
provide technical support in nuclear, mechanical, structural, i electrical, thermal-hydraulic, metallurgical and materials, and 13 instrumentation and controls enginee.ing and licensing. The Fuel
- _ Department provides technical support in the areas of fueling and l_ refueling operations support. The System Operations Department t
provides technical support for plant maintenance. The Operations i Training & Technical Services Department provides technical support for training, plant chemistry, health physics, emergency preparedness, environmental monitoring, and seismic monitoring. The Corporate Quality Assurance Department provides technical support for engineering and construction quality assurance, operations quality assurance, and quality assurance audit. Consultants are retained as needed to 1
supplement CP&L's technical expertise. These engineering staffs are described in Section 13.1.1.2.
13.1.1.2 Ormanizational Arranaement g3 Since the first nuclear generating un'it belonging to CP&L began commercial operation in March 1971, the amount of nuclear generating capacity on the Company's system derived from nuclear power has incressed substantially.
Accordingly, the Company's responsibilities in connection with its nuclear r
13.1.1-6 13 Amendment No.
SHNPP FSAR t
facilities have grown. During this period of, time, the Company has developed and enhanced its capabilities with respect to the construction, operation, and l C
- maintenance of its nuclear facilities. The Company has safely managed H. B.
Robinson Unit 2, and Brunswick Units 1 and 2 since they were placed into operation approximately 14, 7 and 8 years ago, respectively. The Company j also managed the construction of the Brunswick facility and is in the process of constructing Unit 1 of the Harris Nuclear Project which is 85 percent complete.
The' Company has been, and will continue to be totally committed to safety and
. quality in the construction and operation of our nuclear facilities.
4 The Company has reorganized its management structure several times during t at
, past 12 years to accommodate and better manage the increased nuclear capacL/
- and additional associated personnel. The most recent reorganization, .
j announced on September 1, 1983, reflects the strengths developed and lessons >
learned f rom the Company's operating experience as well as from the experiences of the rest of the nuclear utility industry. It focuses the authority and responsibility for operation, engineering, and construction j under one individual at each of CP&L's three nuclear plant sites. In 4 addition, it ties many of the related offsite nuclear support organizations to the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP) and H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (HBR) plant organizations and places th'em under one individual, the Senior Vice President - Nuclear Generation. The Vice President, Brunswick Nuclear Project (BNP), who presently reports directly to the Executive Vice
- President, Power Supply & Engineering and Construction, also benefits from the f support services that are under the Senior Vice President - Nuclear Generation
( (see Figure 13.1.1-1). g3 The Company's nuclear projects are supported by an extensive organization that provides expertise in a sariety of areas. For the most part, the organizations are structured to focus nuclear activities within separate departmental and organizational structures. This philosophy ensures that the Company's other, nonnuclear activities will not divert appropriate management attention from the conduct of its nuclear activities. The Corporate support for nuclear activities is managed by the Executive Vice President - Power Supply and Engineering & Construction Groups who reports to the President / Chairman. Reporting to the Executive Vice President - Power Supply and Engineering & Construction are five officers and a department manager whose organizations further subdivide technical and managerial support into six areast a) Senior Vice president - Nuclear Generation Group; b) Senior
- Vice President - Fossil Ceneration and Power Transmission Group; c) Senior Vice President - Operations Support Group; d) Vice President - Brunswick Nuclear Project Department; e) Vice President - Corporate Nuclear Safety and Research Department; and f) Manager - Corporate Quality Assurance Department
- (see Figure 13.1.1-2). The responsibilities of each of these groups and ,
departments are described below n) Nuclear Generation Group - The Senior Vice President - Nuclear Generation
- Croup reports to the Executive Vice President - Power Supply and Engineering &
. Construction. The major offsite support organization for nuclear operations is the Nuclear Generation Group which provides a source of offsite technical 13.1.1-7 ,
Amendment No. 13
and managerial resources to assist and support, the operating plants in areas of nuclear licensing, civil design, instrumentation and controls, computers, [
\
mechanical, electrical, nuclear engineering, metallurgical analysis, construction, operations, and industrial security.
The Nuclear Generation Group includes the Harris Nuclear Project Department, the Robinson Nuclear Project Department, the Nuclear Engineering & Licensing Department, the Nuclear Plant Construction Department, the Engineering and Construction Support Services Department, and the Nuclear Staff Support Section (see Figure 13.1.1-3).
- 1) The Rarris Nuclear Project Department is responsible for managing the design, construction, startup, and operations of the Harris Plant.
The department's mission is to manage the site activities in a manner which will promote the economic, safe, reliable, and effective operations of the plant over its lifetime. The organisation, formed on September 1, 1983, represents the Company's concept of providing more direct on-site management control over all engineering, construction, startup, and ,
operations activities at the plant. This department is headed by the Vice President - Harris Nuclear Project Department who reports to the Senior Vice President - Nuclear Generation Group. Other support f unctions are provided from other departments in Power Supply and Engineering & Construction.
The Vice President - Harris Nuclear Project is responsible for managing all aspects of engineering, construction, startup, operation, and ,-
maintenance of the Harris Nuclear Project. He is to conduct these activities in a manner which will protect the health and safety of the (
3 public, will be in compliance with the applicable governmental regulations, and will be within the policies and guidelines of the Company. Reporting to the Vice President - Harris Nuclear Project Department is the General Manager - Harris Plant Operations Section, Project General Manager - Harris Plant Construction Section, Manager -
Harris Plant Engineering Section, Manager - Project Administration, and Manager - Planning and Controls (see Figure 13.1.1-4).
(a) The Harris Plant Operations Section is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and management of the nuclear generating facility at the Harris site.
(b) The Harris Plant Construction Section is responsible for construction sanagement of the Harris site and for the control over the constructor, and contractors at the plant site. The Harris Plant Construction Section is responsible for providing construction engineering support, inspection, and review of design drawings and specifications to ensure ease of construction. The Section is also responsible for the administration of contracts, the coordination of '
Company-owned tools and equipment, participation in construction methods selection, planning, and direct supervision and inspection of the constructor and contractors.
13.1.1-8 Amendment No. 13 M
SHNPP FSAR (c) The Harris Plant Engineering Section (HPES) is responsible for providing engineering modifications and design configuration control C for the operating unit. The Harris Plant Engineering Section, supported as required by Nuclear Engineering and Licensing and/or outside consultants, will produce detailed design modification packages as required by the plant. Construction and/or operation implementation of these modifications will be supported by HPES.
The Section will focus on generation and maintenance of design documents and procurement documents (drawings, specifications,
, design basis documents, etc.). Technical support will be provided to the operations organization as required in areas such as spare parts, Q-list equipment, and equipment qualification. Harris Plant Engineering Section personnel will be available to participate in the review of plant operating, maintenance and surveillance procedures as requested. A major benefit of this process will hs that the same technical staff that administered the design of the Harris Plant during its construction will be responsible for the technical support of plant operations.
(d) The Project Administration Section supports the administrative needs of the Harris Nuclear Project Department by providing a centralized source for these services. The Section provides these services either through its own central organization location or through satellite offices located with the various organizations it supports. These activities span a range of responsibilities from coordination of some activities, such as training and employee
( relations coordination, to management responsibility for activities such as document control and warehousing. I3 (e) The Planning and Controls Section aids management in ensuring that a consistent, coordinated structure of work activitiea is achieved which focuses on the objectives and goals of the Department. The Section monitors the resulting structure and reports information to other site management indicating compliance with or variances from the plan. Primary responsibilities of the Section are to identify, develop, and implement programs, systems, methods, and related documents for planning and scheduling, budgeting, cost control, site programs, cost assurance, and industrial engineering such that management visibility is maintained to historical accomplishments as well as anticipated variances.
Information and forward visibility permits corrective action while managerial alternatives remain open.
- 2) The Robinson Nuclear Project Department operates and maintains the Company's nuclear generating facility at the H. B. Robinson Plant. ,
Reporting to the Manager - Robinson Nuclear Project Department is the General Manager - Robinson Plant Section, Manager - Planning & Scheduling Section, Manager - Project Construction Section, Manager - Control &
Administration Section, and Manager - Design Engineering Section (see Figure 13.1.1-5). The Robinson Plant Section organization and responsibilities are similar to those described for the General Manager -
Harris Plant Operations Section in Section 13.1.2.2.1.
13.1.1-9 Amendment No. 13
SHNFP FSAR
- 3) The Nuclear Engineering & Licensing Department is responsible for the licensing and engineering support of the Company's nuclear generating facilities. The Nuclear Engineering & Licensing Department is divided
[
\
Into four sections: the Nuclear Licensing Section, the Engineering Support, Nuclear Plants Sections I and II, and the Nuclear Engineering Projects Section. In addition to the four sections, the department Vice President has a Director - Nuclear Engineering Safety Review Unit on his staff (see Figure 13.1.1-6).
(a) The Nuclear Licensing Section acts as the Company's interface with the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and, for multiple plant activities, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement. The section is organised into four units with the following functional responsibilities:
The Project Nuclear Licensing Units are responsible for coordination of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (ONRR) activities affecting the Company's three nuclear projects. This includes the coordination and preparation of responses to ONRR' requests, and the preparation of license amendments and licensing documents such as the Harris Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). These units are responsible for the maintenance of operating licenses, revisions to the technical specifications, and updating of FSARs.
The Special Nuclear Programs Unit is responsible for coordination of generic licensing issues. This includes coordination and preparation of responses concerning generic ONRR activities f g3 ,
affacting the Company's four nuclear units. It advises Company \
management on critical licensing issues and ensures that incoming NRC correspondence is routed properly and that responses are prepared to address licensing issues accurately. In addition.
Special Nuclear Programs coordinates the Comp'any's regulatory related involvement in industry organizations including AIF, EEI, and EPRI. This Unit also participates in various utility owners' groups and supports other special projects of a technical or regulatory nature as required.
(b) TheEngineeringShport Nuclear Plants Sections are responsible for providing engineering support for the Company's nuclear plants and for utilising feedback received from the operating plants so as to prevent identified problems from recurring. The Sections' objectives are to provide engineering and I ,
procurement of engineered products on schedule with designs that are economical, safe, efficient, reliable, and coepatible with the environment. The Engineering Support, Nuclear Plants Sections are organised into technical units along discipline lines which are headed by Principal Engineers. The Unit Heads are responsible to the Section Nanagers for ensuring the project work which falls into their areas of responsibility is accomplished in such a manner that the Sections' accountabilities are fulfilled. They provide the design engineering necessary to resolve those operating plant l
, 13.1.1-10 Amendment No. 13 I
SHNPP FSAR
' ( -
problems referred'to their Units and.are responsible for utilizing operating plant feedback and for identifying potential problems which might affect the design and engineering of current power plant construction projects. These Units are staffed with engineers and
- designers of required experience, education, and capability.
- Architect / Engineers and other consultants may also be retained to
- assist the Sections in meeting their objectives.
(c) _ The Nuclear Engineering Projects' Section is divided into three ,
units: Nuclear Projects Unit I, Nuclear Projects Unit II, and i Engineering Administrative Unit. The Section is responsible, I through its Nuclear Projects Units, for ensuring that the NELD j' provides the required design and engineering support for each nuclear project and that the nuclear projects appropriately utilize
- the resources of NELD. The nature of this support is reflected in defined written agreements with each of the projects and in
- accordance with other departmental procedures and/or guidelines.
The Section establishes the scope, content, and magnitude of projects assigned to Architect / Engineers and manages the A/E engineering work throughout the final acceptability of the design project.
l .
The Engineering' Administrative Unit provides the technical support services required by the Sections in the Department. Priorities are set to meet the identified schedules established for the nuclear projects. The Unit serves as the focal point for collecting, l
( processing, and disseminating required information to allow responsible management to monitor schedule and cost progress on:all assigned plant modification projects and provides support in g3 !
engineering schedule preparation, engineering, scheduling services e during project implementation, supplement scope development, QA records support, and other engineering administrative support to in-
- - house' engineering design sections within the Department.
(d) The primary responsibilities of the Director-Safety Review, Nuclear Engineering are to review documents generated by the i Company's nuclear organization -and A/Es to identify problems in i
engineered safeguards systema and plant. safety features; to assess activities and trends in the industry regarding design and operation of safety features; to provide feedback to preclude potential nuclear safety problems in ongoing plant designs and design of modifications; and to assure that AI. ARA concepts for radiation control n're cons'idered in engineered designs.
. 4) The Nuclear Plant Construction Department manages the procurement and contracting activities for all nuclear generating facilities and j contains the Procurement and Contracting Section (see Figure 13.1.1-7).
a j The Construction Procurement and Contracting Section conducts all
, procurement and contracting activities required to support the completion
, of construction project assignments. The Construction Procurement and C * ,
j .
5 13.1.1-11 Amendment No. 13
--++ w-, - ,., - . - - - . --,,,_-,.mw-p...-..,_me.m_w _,.,.,_.-,,%,p.-,qm., -,--,,,.,w,-,m,,,,wo,-,mw -
.,...,,,,.-mm-mw. . _ , ,
- _ _ -- .-- - ~- - . . - ~-
SHNFP FSAR
' Contracting Section provides both firm-price and reimbursable contracts, onsite procurement and expediting service's, and construction equipment and tool management. Onsite procurement staffs have been established at
[
A the Harris, Robinson, and Brunswick Nuclear Projects.
. 5) The Engineering and Construction Support Services Department provides support services to the other Departments within the Company in the areas of estimating, budgeting, cost control, cost reporting, construction accounting, information management, and construction security (See Figure 13.1.1-8).
- 6) The Nuclear Staff Support Section is primarily responsible for coordinating the implementation and maintenance of operationally oriented l
programs that require high technical knowledge of methods and procedures and that should be relatively consistent among the plants. The Section is also responsible for preparing reports and documents, performing staff studies, providing administrative / technical support as required and coordinating the Company's involvement in institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). These efforts are coordinated with each project.
b) Fossil Generation and Power Transmission Group - The Senior Vice President - Fossil Generation and Power Transmission Group reports to the Executive Vice President - Power Supply & Engineering and Construction and is responsible for managing the Company's fossil and hydro generating facilities 1 and the Company's transmission line facilities necessary to meet its bulk
, 13 power requirements. There are five departments and two sections which report to the Senior Vice President - Fossil Generation and Power Transmission Group: 1) the Fossil Engineering & Construction Department, 2) the Fossil (
! Operations Department, 3) the Special Projects Department, 4) the System Operations Department, 3) the Transmission Department, 6) the Maintenance Support Section, and 7) the Assistant to Group Executive - Fossil Generation &
Power Transmission (see Figure 13.1.1-9). The responsibilities of each of these departments are described below:
2
- 1) The Fossil Engineering & Construction Department provides engineering and construction support and management for additions and modifications to. operating fossil and hydro-generating plants and for new fossil generating plants. The department is divided into three sections: '(a) the En'gineering Support, Fossil Plants Section, (b) the Fossil Plants Construction Section, and (c) the Special Projects Section (see Figure 13.1.1-10). While not primarily associated with the i Company's nuclear generating facilities, this dep rtment represents a source for feedback of potential problems common to all types of plants and is also a reservoir of engineering and construction talent and i experience which could be applied to problems at nuclear f acilities if
- required.
- 2) The Fossil Operations Department _ is responsible for the startup, testing, operation, and maintenance of the Company's fossil and hydro l
generating f acilities (except those at the Robinson Plant). The department ensures that plants are operated in a safe, economical, and 13.1.1-12 Amendment No. 13
- - ' ~ - ,e.. ~ _ , , , , , , , _ _ _ _ _ ,
i
, SHNPP FSAR t
reliable manner to meet system demand and that the equipment is
, maintained in good order in accordance with accepted maintenance practices. The plants maintain staffing levels sufficient for routine a-operation and maintenance activities; however, additional maintenance support is provided when needed from the Maintenance Support Section.
The department depends on the Fossil Engineering & Construction Department for engineering and construction services associated with plant modifications and additions; however, the department retains O responsibility for checkout, startup, and testing of new facilities or ;
l_ ,
modLfications. Ine department is responsible for planning and conducting outages when required; outage plans are coordinated with the System Opera'tions Department. The department is organized into ten sections and one unit: eight Plant Sections, Operating Plants Technical Support Section, Administiiative Section, and Office Services Unit.
l
- 3) The Special Projects Department - The Vice President - Special
- Projects serves as a technical consultant to all operating nuclear, fossil, hydro, and IC plants on operations and maintenance related matters.
i The Vice President - Special Projects is also available for consultation to departments in the Nuclear Generation and Fossil Generation & Power '
F Transmission Groups as well as the BNP on engineering matters where operations input will result in improved operating plant performance.
The Vice President - Special Projects must be highly qualified
- 4. technically and must have extensive operating plant experience to provide 13 the necessary guidance in solving power plant problems.
I 4) The System Operations Department is responsible for load dispatch and the operation and maintenance of transmission lines and substations (see Figure ' 13.1.1-12).
- 5) The Transmission Department is responsible for the planning location, design, and construction of transmission line facilities necessary to meet the bulk power requirements of the Company (see Figure 13.1.1-13). The department is also responsible for the planning, design, and construction of Company-owned communications facilities.
- 6) The Maintenance Support Section provides~ support to the maintenance i
programs at the Company's operating power generating plants. These functions include coordinating the scheduling'of generating equipment.
- outages with the System Operations Department and providing maintenance
- manpower and technical support activity.
- 7) The Assistant to the Group Executive - Fossil Generation & Power Transmission provides a focal point for coordinating group or corporate
' activities that require cooperation among multiple departments. The section is responsible for supporting the group executive and department managers in developing and applying techniques and methods for identifying and evaluating the performance of organizations within the
+
group. The section is responsible for providing support in rate cases
. 13.1.1-13 1 Amendment No. 13
. , - , - ~ . - . , ,w-_,.-,.m.,,w, _,,,,yn,..r, y. , . ,, m,.,g,.p-m_,_ ,,y..w.,,_.,_ ,m.p.,,,._,,___m
- - -- . . . . .-- . - . - -. . . - - - - .~ --
SHNPP FSAR and other regulatory proceedings in areas related to plant and/or system f l performance. The section has internal resources which enable it to carry out many of its assignments without disrupting the activities of other organisations; however, the section has authority to direct other
( 1 i
organizations in the group with regard to providing certain types of
- information relating to operating performance. The section works with the group executive to design management systems that facilitate group ,
and department planning and performance evaluation and coordinates the '
implementation of such systems with the department managers in the group.
c) Operations Support Group - The Senior Vice President - Operations Support Group reports to tha Executive Vice President - Power Supply and Engineering &
Construction. He is responsible for the management of the materials and fuel needs of the generating and transmission facilities in addition to the training and technical support of those personnel. There are three departments and two sections in the Operations Support Group: 1) the Fuel l Department, 2) the Materials Management Department, 3) the Operations Tcaining
& Technical Services Department, 4) the Environmental Services Section, and
- 5) the Contract Services Section (see Figure 13.1.1-14). Their responsibilities are summarized below:
- 1) The Fuel Department ensures the proper mancment of nuclear and fossil fuels used for the production of electrical powsr. The department is organized into three sections: (a) the Nuclear Fuel Section, (b) the Fossil Fuel Section, and (c) the Administration and Analysis Section (see Figure 13.1.1-15). The Nuclear Fuel Section is staf fed with personnel having both the technical and managerial expertise required to ensure a timely and adequate supply of nuclear fuel, to review fuel and core 13 design, to support nuclear plant outages (including refuelings) and operations, and to provide for spent fuel management. The Nuclear Fuel Section meets with members of the Company's operating nuclear plants on a continuing basis.co plan and optimize the fuel operation strategy.
- 2) The Materials Management Department is responsible for corporate purchasing, inventory control, warehousing, and salvage of the Company's material needs (see Figure 13.1.1-16).
- 3) The operations Training & Technical Services Department supports nuclear and fossil plant construction, operations, and operator training. There are two sections and one unit within the Operations Training & Technical Services Department: (a) the Nuclear Training Section, (b) the Radiological and Chemical Support Section, and (c) the Emergency Preparedness Unit (see Figure 13.1.1-17).
(a) The Nuclear Training Section provides support to the Nuclear Project Departments in the areas of Operations, Technical and Craf t Training, and the operation of the simulators and other training facilities at the HE&EC and at the respective nuclear projects. The primary purpose 'of the Nuclear Training Section is to assure that tha Company has highly qualified personnel available to maintain and operate its nuclear generating plants in a safe and efficient 13.1.1-14 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR manner. These re'sponsibilities and. services are provided by an C organization consisting of eight units which support nuclear projects: the Nuclear and Simulator Training Unit, the Fossil Operator Training Unit, the Craft and Technical Training Unit, the Administrative Unit and the Curriculum Development Unit at the HE&EC; and the Robinson Training Unit, the Brunswick Training Unit, and Harris Training Unit located at the respective nuclear plants.
(b) The Radiological and Chemical Support Section (R& CSS) provides staff support in the areas of health physics, chemistry, and radiological environmental activities and for the effective operation of the environmental, dosimetry, and chemistry laboratories. The R& CSS has responsibilities identified in the Corporate Escrgency Plan to provide health physics and environmental support to the nuclear plants in the event of an accident. These
, responsibilities and services are provided by an organization consisting of three units, headed by two principal specialists and a director: the Health Physics Unit, the Environmental Unit, and the Chemistry Unit.
(c) The Emergency Preparedness Unit is responsible fort directing and coordinating Corporate Emergency Planning to ensure regulatory compliance; assessing the readiness of all CP&L emergency plans and programs; serving as interface with regulatory agencies on emergency preparedness matters; providing emergency preparedness support for CP&L nuclear plants; maintaining training qualifications of plant
( personnel in emergency response; testing emergency preparedness by preparing and conducting exercises; ensuring the availability and operational readiness of emergency facilities, equipment, and 13 supplies; developing dam failure emergency plans for the hydro plants and providing coordination with federal, state, and local agencies.
- 4) The Environmental Services Section conducts the Company's environmental monitoring assessments and performs analytical chemistry and metallurgical laboratory services at the Harris Energy &
Environmental Center (HE&EC) in New Hill, North Carolina. The Analytical Chemistry, Air Quality, Biology, and Metallurgy Laboratories provide an array of services and technical support to generating plants, engineering activities, quality asserance and construction programs within the Company. One subunit of the Biology Unit is located at BSEP. The Permits Unit is responsible for obtaining non-radiological permits for all generating plants. The Unit established and currently operates the Harris seismic monitoring program and the Harris, Brunswick, and Robinson meteorological data collection programs. It also has lead responsibility in acquiring the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and any federal, state, and local permits not required by the -
NRC.
- 5) The Contract Services Section supports Company departments in obtaining outside labor and services at favorable cost, terms, and conditions. Contract Services Section is responsible for providing 13.1.1-15 Amendment No. 13
SHNFP FSAR contract support services to all departments of CP&L except for the f Nuclear Projects, Corporate QA, Corporate Nuclear Safety and Research, and the Puel Department. Also, the Contract Services Section develops
(
and maintains all system contracts covering work in both nuclear and fossit plants.
l d) Brunswick Nuclear Project Department - The Vice President - Brunswick Nuclear Project Department reports to the Emecutive Vice President - Power '
Supply.& Engineering and Construction. His responsibilities are similar to those of the Vice President - Narris Nuclear Project Department, and he is supported in these responsibilities by the General Manager Brunswick Plant, l the Engineering and Construction Section, the Site Planning and Control Section, and the Brunswick Nuclear Project Outages Section (see ,
Figure 13.1.1-18). These sections are responsible for the operation, maintenance, engineering, construction, and management of the Brunswick Plant.
1 j
e) Corporate Nuclear Safety and Research Department - The Vice President of I the Corporate Nuclear Safety and Research Department reports to the Executive Vice President - Power Supply and Engineering & Construction (see Figure 13.1.1-20). He is responsible for the management of the functions of corporate health physics, corporate nuclear safety, and research in support of ,
Company activiti The Corporate Nuclear Safety Section, the Corporate Health Physics Section and the Research Section report directly to the Vice President - Corporate Nuclear Safety and Research. These sections conduct the independent nuclear safety ,
reviews and health physics assessments of the Company's nuclear f acilities.
Their responsiblitties are summarised below:-
13 ,
- 1) The Corporate Nuclear Safety (CNS) Section monitors the Company's operating nuclese plants to ensure that the associated nuclear safety programs are carried out in an effective manner.
The CNS independent review activity addresses the followingt (a) Procedures and changes meeting 10 CFR 50.59 review criteria, (b) Licensing actions, (c) Test or experiments not described in the facility FSAR, (d) Plant operational occurrences (LERs),
(e) Regulatory. violations (IE Reports),
! (f) Technical Specification changes, ;
i (g) Plant Nuclear Safety Committee (PNSC) meeting minutes, and 1
(h) Any item deemed appropriate for review relative to safe i operations. l i
13.1.1-16 -
Amendment No. 13
SHEPP FSAR i
- 2) The Corporate Hea'lth Physics Section consists of personnel with education and/or work experience in fields of radiation hygiene or health physics. The section is also ' responsible for formulating and recommending corporate level health physics policies and programs, evaluating health physics programs and recommending any needed improvements and modifications in those programs, and providing health physics expertise throughout the Company. The Section provides support to the licensing and corporate nuclear safety activities of the Company, is responsible for the development and distribution of the Corporate ALARA Program, and makes periodic assessments of various ALARA programs developed to comply with the Corporate ALARA Program.
- 3) The Research Section undertakes research either with its own resources or through funding outside organizations such as EPRI and DOE in areas approved by senior management. This section is also responsible for maintaining awareness of other research into technologies that could impact CP&L and for advising management of new developments.
f) Corporate' Quality Assurance Department - The Manager of the Corporate Quality Assurance Department reports to the Executive Vice President - Power Supply and Engineering & Construction (see Figure 13.1.1-19). This department was organized to consolidate the quality assurance, quality control, and audit
~
functions which were previously performed separately for engineering and construction activities, operations activities, and corporate quality assurance audit _ activities. In this manner, the Manager - Corporate Quality Assurance oversees the QA/QC activities of both the Power Supply and the :
(
13 Engineering & Construction organizations while maintaining independence f rom any responsibilities within those organizations. The Corporate Quality Assurance Department is organized in three major divisions: 1) the Harris Plant QA/QC Section, 2) the Brunswick and Robinson Plants QA/QC Section, and
. 3) the QA Services Section. Their responsibilities are summarized below:
- 1) The Harris Plant, QA/QC Section has the primary responsibility for the Harris Plant Quality Assurance / Quality Control,,in the engineering and.
construction phase and during start-up, and through operations. Its purpose is to anticipate and preclude safety-related nonconformances.
This section is also responsible for the preparation of the ASME "N"
$- Stamp QA Manual.
- 2) The Brunswick and Robinson Plants QA/QC Section is responsible for assuring proper application of quality standards, practices, and
- procedures associated with plant operation, maintenance or. modification .
- dt CP&L operating plants'(H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2 and Brunswick Units 1 i
and 2).
3): The ' QA Services Section is responsible for supporting CP&L's nuclear -
plants in the areas of QA Engineering, vendor qualification / surveillance '
- and training. This section is also responsible for conducting an
. independent corporate audit program. -
13.1 1-17 Amendment No.13 r- p--c -w - w - es w w++,m---,-,r w, --,---e**
SHNPP FSAR 13.1.1.3 Qualifications Carolina Power & Light Company will depend upon the engineering staffs of several departments. These staff positions are filled by individuals with several years of experience. Table 13.1.1-1 lists key CP&L personnel currently working on the SENPP and their educational background and 13 l **Perience. The Manager, Harris Plant Engineering Section is the
" Engineer-in-Charge" as specified in ANS 3.1, September 79 Draf t.
Resumes of key engineering personnel involved in SHNPP are provided in this section. Carolina Power & Light Company organizational charts are provided as figures at the end of Section 13.1.
i l .
4 13.1.1-18 Amendment No. 13
SENPP FSAR h- ,
E. E. Utley, Executive Vice President, Power Supply and Engineering &
j C Construction
- 1. Education A. College: Louisburg College and N. C. State University B. Courses: Massachusetts Institute of Technology " Nuclear Plant Design & Operation Course" Georgia Institute of Technology "Public Utility Executive Course" Edison Electric Institute " Executive Management Program" Basic Radiological Healta Course Conducted by the Public Health Service, Winchester, Massachusetts II. Experience A. Joined CP&L in 1951 in the Operating & Engineering Department B. 1959, appointed Superintendent of the W. H. Weatherspoon Plant - CP&L C. 1963, appointed Superintendent of the H. F. Lee Plant - CP&L D. 1965, appointed Superintendent of the x 'xboro Plant - CP&L E. 1966, promoted to Production & Results Engineer in the General Of fice
- CP&L F. 1968, named Manager of Production - CP&L G. May 1,1970, named Manager of the Generation & System Operations Department - CP&L H. 1972, named Manager, Bulk Power Supply Department - CP&L
- 1. September 1972, elected Vice President - CP&L J. January 1, 1977,' appointed Senior Vice President and head of the Power Supply Group - CP&L K. May 1979, named Executive Vice President - CP&L L. June 1, 1979, appointed in charge of the Power Supply & Customer Services Groups - CP&L M. May 1, 1980, appointed in charge of the Power Supply and Engineering
& Construction Groups - CP&L .
i
. i 13.1.1-19 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR E. E. Utley C
III. Professional Societies A. American Society of Mechanical Engineers B. North Carolina Society of Engineers C. Raleigh Engineers Club D. American Nuclear Society (National)
E. Eastern Carolinas Section of American Nuclear Society F. Association of Edison Illuminating Companies - Committee on Power.
Generation 13.1.1-20 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR James M. Davis, Jr., Senior Vice President - Operations Support I. Education & Training B. S. Degree in Mechanical Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC - 1958 II. Experience A. Companies (other than CP&L) and Military Experience
- 1. July 1958 - August 1961- Reserve Officer in U. S. Air Force
- 2. September 1961 - September 1965 - Test Engineer in the l Experimental Engineering Department of Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, East Hartford, Connecticut i
B. Carolina Power & Light Company
- 1. September 1965 - February 1968 - Employed as a Heating and !
Cooling Engineer in the Special Services Section of the Market,ing Department.
- 2. February 1968 - November 1970 - Assistant to Director in the Rates and Regulation Department
( 3.
4.
November 1970 - December 1976 - Assistant Director in the Rates and Regulation Department 13 December 1976 - June 1979 - Manager of Rates and Service Practices Department
- 5. June 1979.- December 1980 - Vice President of Fuel and Materials Management Group
- 6. December 1980 - August 1983 - Senior Vice President of Fuel and Materials Management Group
- 7. August 1983 - Present - Senior Vice President of Operations Support Group III. Professional Societies North Carolina Society of Engineers - Director, District II Professional Engineers of North Carolina Nat,ional Society of Professional Engineers American Nuclear Society North Carolina Chapter of the Health Physics Society The Raleigh Engineers Club 13.1.1-21 Amendment No. 13
-m- -- - , --w y a g e- ---
SHNPP FSAR L. W. Eury, Senior Vice President - Fossil Generation & Power Transmission 13 I. Education A. B.S. Degree in Electrical Engineering - North Caroline State University - 1959 B. General Electric Protective Relaying School - 1963 C. Air Circuit Breaker School - 1966
, D. Public Utility Reports Course - 1967 E. Phase I of Westinghouse Reactor Operator Training Course -
1968 F. Company Sponsored Management Development Courses: Basic Principles of Supervisory Management; Adversary Interviewing Workshop; Basic Principles of Management Review; EE0 Workshop for Management; Financial Seminar for Non-Financial Personnel; GENC0; Performance Evaluation Training; PUR Guide; Purview; Effective W(iting; Southern Industrial Relations Conference; Speed Reading; Public Utility Management Course; Orientation g
Program for Newly Appointed Department.IIeads; Fundamentals of Financa & Accounting for Non-Financial Executive; Managing Management Time; Effective Managerial Leadership G. GE-BWR/6 Operating Fundamentals Course (September 1980) t H. EEI Executive Management Course - Hershey (4/82 - 5/82)
II. Experience A. June 1959 to April 1960 - Junior Engineer, Carolina Power &
Light Company, Northern Division Relay Office, Raleigh, North Carolina E. April 1960 to October 1960 - United States Army C. October 1960 to April 1961 - Junior Engineer, Carolina Power 13
& Light Company, Northern Division Relay Office, Raleigh, North Carolina D. April 1961 to May 1961 - Junior Engineer, System Relay Office, General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina i
E. May 1961 to June 1962 - Engineer, System Relay Of fice, General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina F. June 1962 to November 1962 - Electrical Engineer, System Relay Office, General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina l 13.1.1-22 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR l L. W. Eury G. November 1962 to March 1966 - Electrical Engineer, Northern -
Division Relay Office, Raleigh, North Carolina H. March 1966 to October 1967 - Senior Engineer, Northern Division Relay Office, Raleigh, North Carolina I. October 1967 to July 1968 - Senior Engineer, System Planning Section, General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina l J. July 1968 to April 1970 - Senior Engineer, System Operations Section, Power Supply Department, Raleigh, North Carolina K. April 1970 to January 1972 - System Operating Engineer, System Operations Section, Generation & System Operations Department, General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina L. January 1972 to February 1972 - Manager - System l Operations, Generation & System Operations Department, l General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina l
M. February 1972 to January 1, 1977 - Manager - System Operations & Maintenance, Bulk Power Supply Department, General Of fice, Raleigh, North Carolina N. January 1, 1977 to May, 1979 - Manager - System Operations l
& Haintenance, System Operations & Maintenance Department, Power Supply Group, General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina i
- 0. June 1979 to April 1980 - Vice President - System Planning
& Coordination Department, Corporate Services Group, General. Office, Raleigh, North Carolina P. May 1980 to December 1980 - Vice President - Power Supply, General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina l 13l I Q. December 19.80 to September 1983 - Senior Vice President -
Power Supply, General Of fice, Raleigh, North Carolina 13 R. August 1983 - Title changed to Senior Vice President, Fossil Generation & Power Transmiscion, General Of fice, Raleigh, North Carolina l III. Professional Societies l A. Registered Professional Engineer - North Carolina & South Carolina
- 5. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers l
l C. Professional Engineer of North Carolina l 13 D. North Carolina Society of Engineers
! E. American Nuclear Society l F. ANS.- Eastern Carolinas Section G. North Carolina Chapter of the Health Physics Society 13.1.1-23 Amendment No. 13 l
SHNPP FSAR l M. A. McDuffie, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation Group 13 I. Education A. B. S. Degree in Civil Engineering from North Carolina State University - 1948 II. Experiesce A. 194,8 - 1952 - Ebasco Services Incorporated, New York, New York
- 1. 1948-1949 - Instrumentman, then acting Party Chief on construction of Lumberton S.E.P. - Units 1 & 2, 88,000 MW Installation
- 2. 1949-1950 - Party Chief on construction of Lumberton S.E.P. - Units 1 & 2, 88,000 KW Installation s
- 3. 1950-1952 - Construction Supervisor on construction H. P. Lee S.E.P. - Unit 2, 66,000 KW Installation B. 1952 - 1955 - News & Observer, Raleigh, North Carolina
- 1. 1955-1956 - Office Engineer on construction of Cape Fear S.E.P. - Unit 5, 125,000 KW Extension
- 2. 1956-1958 - Field Engineer on construction of Cape Fear S.E.P. - Units 5 & 6, 281,000 KW Extension
. 3. 1958-1960 - Construction Engineer on construction of H. B. Robinson S.E.P. - Ur.it 1, 182,000 KW Installation
- 4. 1960-1962 - Resident Engineer on construction of H. F. Lee S.E.P. - Unit 3, 250,000 KW Extension
- 5. 1962-1964 - Construction Superintendent on construction of Asheville S.E.P. - Unit 1, 190,000 KW Installation -
- 6. 1964-1965 - Construction Superintendent on -
construction of Roxboro S.E.P. - Unit 1 375,000 KW Installation
(_
13.1.1-24 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR M. A. McDuffie
- 7. 1956-1966 - Project Superintendent on construction of Roxboro S.E.P. - Units 1 & 2, 1,025,000 KW Installation
- 8. 1966-1968 - Project Superintendent on construction of H. B. Robinson S.E.P. - Unit 2, 700,000 KW (e)
Nuclear Installation
- 9. 1968-1970 - Construction Manager supervising construction of Possil and Nuclear steam electric stations and switchyards on East Coast l I
D. June 1970 - Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh j North Carolina. Employed as Manager of Construction I in the Power Plant Design & Construction Department
- 1. September 1,1973 - Promoted to Manager, Power Plant Construction Department - CP&L
- 2. december 5, 1974 - Promoted to Vice President, Power Plant Construction Department - CP&L
- 3. June 24, 1976 - Promoted to Senior' Vice President, Power Plant Engineering & Construction - CP&L 13' 4. September 1, 1983 - Title changed to Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation Croup - CP&L III. Professional Societies A. Registered Professional Engineer in State of North Carolina B. Registered Civil Engineer in State of South Carolina C. North Carolina Society of Engineers i
t i
l 13.1.1-25 Amendment No. 13 l
SHNPP FSAR 13 A. B. Cutter - Vice President, Nuclear Engineering & Licensing Department I. Education A. B.S. Degree in Chemical Engineering; University of Rochester,, Rochester, NY. - June 1956 B. M.S. Degree in Nuclear Science and Engineering; Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. - June 1972 C. Advanced Nuclear Power Training Course, U.S. Navy; New London, CT., and West Milton, NY. - October 1963 D. Several graduate courses in Nuclear Engineering at University of Idaho, National Reactor Test Site Extension 1966-1967 E. Tuck Executive Program, Amos Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. - 1976 F. Brookings Institute for Government Operation; Brookings Institute, Washington, DC. - 1978 G. Numerous short courses in Project Management, Architect-Engineer Management, and General Management Techniques - Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA.
[I. Experience A. June 1956 - May 1967 - U.S. Navy
- 1. October 1962 - Advanced Nuclear Power School
- 2. April 1962 - Nuclear Power Training Unit, West Milton, NY.
- 3. October 1962 - Assistant Engineer (main propulsion) aboard ballistic missile submarino under construction, and during initial operations
- 4. January 1965 - Chief Engineer, S1W Prototype, Naval Reactor Facility, Idaho B. June 1967 to March 1980 - Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA.
- 1. June 1967 - Project Manager, Nuclear Steam Supply System. Total responsibility for schedule, technical adequaev, and profitability for Westinghouse on three pressurized water reactor projects (Prairie Island 1 and 2, Kewaunee).
13.1.1-26 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR l
A. B. Cutter
- 2. October 1971 - Program Manager, Fast Flux Test Facility ( !
- 3. March 1973 - Program Manager, Clinch River Breeder Reactor.
- 4. June 1975 - Director, Iran Operations
- 5. October 1976 - Manager, Projects Operations
- C. April 1980 to Present - Carolina Power & Light Company, General Office, Raleigh, N.C.
l
- 1. April 1980 - Employed as Manager, Nuclear Power Plant Engineering Department
- 2. March 1981 - Vice President, Nuclear Plant Engineering Department
- 3. September 1983 - Vice President, Nuclear Engineering &
13 Licensing Department III. Professional Societies A. American Nuclear Society '
13 B. Professional Engineer - State of North Carolina
.l -
1 13.1.1-27 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR T. S. Elleman, Vice President, Corporate Nuclear Safety & Research I. Education-l A. Denison University - Granville, Ohio - 1953 - B.S. in '
Chemistry j B. Iowa State University - 1957 - PhD in Physical Chemistry II. Experience A. 1957 - Nuclear Materials Scientist, Battelle Memorial Institute B. 1964 - Assistant Chief of the Chemical Physics Division, Battelle Memorial Institute C. 1964 - Associate Professor, Nuclear Engineering, No rth Carolina State University E. 1972,- Head of Advanced Fuels Development Department, General Atomic (took one year leave of absence from North Carolina State University)
F. 1974 - Professor and Head of Nuclear Engineering Cepartment, North Carolina State University
( G. 1979 - Vice President, Nuclear Safety & Research Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina III. Professional Societies A. Member of American Nuclear Society B. Member of American Society for Engineering Education C. Chairman-Elect of the Nuclear Division of American Society for Engineering Education, 1978 D. Chairman of the North Carolina Radiation Protection Council, 1976-1978 1
f L
l 13.1.1-28 Amendment No. 13 r
L >
! SHNPP FSAR
- l. -
l S. J. Furr, Vice President - Operations Training & Technical Services g3 Department l
I. Education and Training A. B. S. Degree in Mechanical Engineering - North Carolina State University - 1962 B. Basic Surveying Course - 1965 C. Basic Radiological Health Course Conducted by the Public Health Service, Winchester, Massachusetts - 1966 D. Reactor Safety and Hazards Evaluation Conducted by the U.S.
Public Health Service, Rockville, Maryland - 1968 E. Westinghouse Nuclear Reactor Training Program - 1968 II. Experience A. June .1955 to July 1958 - U. S. Army - Instructor in Aviation Maintenance B. Summer 1960 - Summer Student Worker - Substation Shops -
Carolina Power & Light Company - Raleigh, North Carolina
( C. Summer 1961 - Summer Student Worker - Cape Fear S. E.
Plant - Carolina Power & Light Company - Moncure, North Carolina D. June 1962 to' May -1963 - Engineer - E. I. DuPont de Nemours Company E. May 1963 employed as a Junior Engineer at the W. H.
Weatherspoon Plant, Lumberton, North Carolina F. February 1964 employed as a Junior Engineer at the H. B.
Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina G. July 1964 employed as a Mechanical Engineer at _ the H. B.
Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina H. January 1966 employed as a Mechanical Engineer at the Roxboro S. E. Plant, Roxboro, North Carolina I. February 1966 employed as Operating & Results Supervisor at the H. B. Robinson _ Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina J. September 1971 employed as a Principal Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Generation & System Operations Department in the General Of fice.
L 13.1.1-29
~ Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR
- 8. J. Furr K. June 1972 employed as Plant Superintendent in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Generation & System Operations Department at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina L. July 1974 employed as Manager - Neelear Generation Services in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department in the General Of fice.
M. :tay 1976 employed as Plant Manager II (Temporary) in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department at Brunswick S. E. Plant, Southport, North Carolina N. December 1976 employed as Manager - Nuclear Generation Services in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department in the General Of fice.
O. January 1977 employed as Manager - Generation Department in the Power Supply Group in the General Of fice.
P. October 1979 employed as Manager - Nuclear Operations in the Power Supply Group in the General Of fice Q. December 1979 employed as Vice President - Nuclear Operations in the Power Supply Group in the General Of fice R. September 1983 employed as Vice President - Operations Training 13 & Technical Services Department in the Operations Support Group in the General Office III. Professional Societies A. Member of American Society of Mechanical Engineers B. Member of American Nuclear Society s
l i
13.1.1-30 !
Amendment No. 13 u
l SHNPP FSAR l
P. W. Howe, Vice President, Brunswick Nuclear Project 13 I. Education A. Bachelor of Science Degree in Chemistry from The Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina in 1951 B. Certificate - Engineering Management - UCLA - 1963 C. Member of U.S.A.E.C. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board from 1962-1966 II. Experience A. September 1951 to February 1956 - Laboratory Supervisor -
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc., Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina B. February 1956 to August 1956 - Senior Nuclear Engineer -
The Martin Company, Nuclear Division, Baltimore, Maryland C. August 1956 to August 1957 - Superintendent - Olin Mathieson Chemical Company, Nuclear Fuels Division, New Haven, Connecticut' D. August 1957 to June 1966 - Department Head - Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California, Berkely, j California E. September 1967 to March 1971 - Chief, Site Environmental and Radiation Safety Group - Division of Reactor Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washingron, D. C.
F. March 1971 to November 1971 - Manager - Environmental &
Technical Services Section of the Generation & System Operations Department, Carolina Power & Light Company G. November 1971 to February 1974 - Manager-Environmental & Technical Services Section, Special Services Department - CP&L H. February 1974 to February 1975 - Manager - Licensing &
Technological Services Section, Special Services Department - CP&L I. February 1975 - Manager - Special Services Department, Engineering, Construction & Operation Group - CF&L J. June 1976 - Manager - Technical Services Department, Engineering, Construction & Operation Group - CP&L K. December 1976 - Vice President - Technical Services Department, Engineering & Construction Group - CP&L 13.1.1-31 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR P. W. Howe C
,,. t. . t. 1,S2 - ,1.e .. u ..t - S. ..m e m e ... ...>. -cm III. P.ofes.ional Societies A. Ame.ican helea. Society 13.1.1-32 Amendment No. 13
3HNPP FSAR E. S. Noell, Jr., Vice President, Transmission Department I3 I. Education i
A. North Carolina State University, 1949, Bachelor of Electrical Engineering Degree (with honors)
B. Westinghouse Protective Relaying School - 1962 C. Public Utility Executive Course, Georgia Tech, 1965 II. Experience A. August, 1949 through March, 1951 - Cadet Engineer Substation Section, Operating & Engineering Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh Of fice B. March, 1951 through December 1952 - Cadet Engineer, Substation Construction Operating & Engineering Department - CP&L ,
C. January, 1953 thorugh March, 1958 - Engineer, Relay Group, Florence, South Carolina - CP&L D. March, 1958 through August, 1962 - Electrical Engineer &
Senior Engineer, Rela" Group, Operating & Engineering C Department, Raleigh Office - CP&L E. August, 1962'throtgh June, 1968 - System Relay Engineer, Operating & Engineering Department, Raleigh Of fice - CP&L F. June 1968 through February, 1972 - Manager-Substation, Relay and Communications Engineering, Engineering Department, Raleigh Office - CP&L G. February, 1972 through October 1, 1976 - Manager-Substation Engineering & Construction, System Engineering &
Construction Department, Raleigh Office - CP&L H. October 1, 1976 through January 30, 1978 - Manager-Transmission Line & Substation Engineering & Construction
, Department, Raleigh - CP&L I. January 30, 1978 - Manager-Transmission System Engineering & Construction Department, Raleigh, North Carolina - CP&L J. May 1981, - Vice President - Transmission & Communication Planning, Engineering & Construction Department, Raleigh, North Carolina - CP&L
%. J 13.1.1-33 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR E. S. Noell .
1
)
K. May 1981 - Vice President - Transmission & Communication Planning, Engineering & Construction Department, Raleigh, North l
- "" ~ '
13 L.- November 1982 - Vice President - Transmission Department, Raleigh, North Carolina - CP&L III. Professional Societies A. Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers (Senior Member)
- 5. Power Engineering Society of the IEEE C. Raleigh Engineers Club D. Registered Professional Engineer - State of North Carolina, 1959; State of South Carolina, 1981
(
\
13.1.1-34 Amendment No. 13
. = . . . - .. - - . . _ . . - .. . . . .- . .
t SHNPP FSAR Sheldon D. Smith, Vice President, Nuclear Plant Construction Department I. Education A. B. S. Degree in Civil Engineering, University of Maine -
Graduated 1948 LI. Experience A. 1948 to 1966 - Ebasco Services, Incorporated, New York, New j York (18 years)
- 1. Design Engineer, New York Of fice (1 year)
- 2. Field Engineer (6 1/2 years) - Houston Lighting and Power Company, Webster, Texas - fossil fual electric generating plant; Union Carbide Company, Texas City.
, Texas - topping unit producing low pressure steam and electricity; Kansas City Power and Light Company, Kansas City, Missouri - fossil fuel electric generating i p.lant
- 3. Resident Engineer (7 years) - Florida Power and Light Company, Sanford, Florida - fossil fuel electric generating plant; Rayonier, Incorporated, Jesup, Georgia - construction and installation of
( 300 ton-per-day pulp mill; Houston Lighting and Power Company, San Bertron plant - fossil fuel electric generating plant; Texas Electric Service, Colorado City, Texas - fossil fuel electric generating plant
- 4. Project Manager (3 1/2 years) - Responsible for overall
, management and supervision of major construction projects, primarily in the nuclear power plant-. field B. 1966 to 1973 - Walter Kidde Constructors, New York, New-York (7 1/2 years).
, 1. European Manager (1 1/2 years) - Responsible for engineering and construction of European activity 1 2. -Vice President, Construction (6 years) - Responsible for corporate direction and administration of all s construction activities j
i i
13.1.1-35
. Amendment No. 13 4
+ ,-.,c- ...-.,my ,-,c- y -- , . ,- - - . -y. , . - - - . , - ,.y..%,-.-..-_.%-.. ~...--- , ,,, , ._, ,,,--yc..,-~...-2 % .._..,c., -
w, ,.er..- e
SHNPP FSAR Sheldon D. Smith C. 1973 - 1974 - Rust Engineering Company - Vice President of Construction, including some work at Oakridge, Tennessee, for the NRC.
D. 1974 to 1976 - The A. Epstein Cos., Incorporated, Vice President of Construction Operations E. 1976 - Carolina Power & Light Cogany - Employed as Manager, Power Plant Construction Department P. 1979 - Elected Vice President, Power Plant Construction Department - CP&L III. Professional Societies A. Ragistered professional engineer in the states of Georgia, Maine, Missouri and Texas B. American Society of Civil Engineers C. American Society of Professional Engineers D. Panel of Arbitrators, American Arbitration Association 3 13.1.1-36 )
Amendment No. 13
. SHNPP FSAR R. A. Watson, Vice President, Harris Nuclear . Project I. Education A. B. S. Degree in Nuclear Engineering - North Carolina State University - 1955 B. Oak Ridge School of Reactor Technology - Oak Ridge, Tennessee - 1956-57 C. M. S. Degree in Physics - Union College, Schenectady, New York - 1961 l
l D. General Electric Company Courses: Electronic Circuits, l Fortran II, Servomechanisms l II. Experience A. 1955 General Electric Company - Schenectady, New York - Program Engineer B. 1956 Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - Schenectady, New York - Educational Leave C. 1957 Nuclear Engineer - Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
( D.
E.
1961 Experimental Physicist '- Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory 1963 Reactor Physicist - Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory F. 1965 Supervising Physicist - Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory G. 1966 Senior Physicist - Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory H. May 1969 - August 1971 - Nuclear Fuel Engineer - Power Supply Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Nuclear Generation Section, General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina I. August 1971 - January 1977 - Director - Nuclear Fuel, Nuclear Bulk Power Supply Department, Fuel Section - CP&L J. January 1977 - May 1977 - Director - Nuclear Fuel, Nuclear Fuel Department, Nuclear Fuel Section - CP&L K. May 1977 - March 1980 - Manager - Fuel, Power Supply Group, Fuel Department - CP&L L
13.1.1-37
, Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR R. A. Watsort C
L. March, 1980 - September 1983 - Vice President - Fuel, Power Supply Group, Fuel Department - CP&L 13 M. September 1983 - Vice President - Harris Nuclear Project, Nuclear Generation Group - CP&L III. Professional Societies A. Registered Professional Engineer - California, 1976 i
13.1.1-38 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR H. R. Banks, Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance Department I. Education A. Graduated from Indiana High School, Indiana, Pennsylvania -
1948
- 8. Class "A" Engineman School from 9/48 to 1/49 - U. S. Navy C. Class "C" Instructor Training School - 1954 - U. S. Navy D. Basic Nuclear Power Engineering School from 7/59 to 1/60 -
U. S. Navy E. Nuclear Power Training Unit from 1/60 to 6/60 - U. S. Navy F. Naval Officers', Limited Duty, Candidate School - 10/64 to 12/64 G. Completed PUR Guide Home Study Course (CP&L) - 3/74 II. Experience A. June 1948 - Dec.1948 - Recruit Training and Engineman School Student - U. S. Navy
( B. Dec. 1948 - June 1951 - USS Catawba, ATA 210, assigned to the Engineering Department. Responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of diesel engines, refrigeration plant, winches, steam heating plant, and pumps C. Jane 1951 - July 1954 - USS LSIL, 638 - Leading Petty Of ficer - Engineering Department D. July 1954 - June 1957 - Naval Training Center, Recruit Training Command, Instructor - San Diego, California E. June 1957 - Oct. 1958 - USS Montrose, APA 212 - Leading Petty Officer, Auxiliary and Boat Division F. October 1958 - January 1959 - Enlisted Submarine School Student C. January 1959 - June 1959 - USS Rasher, SSR 269 - Leading Petty Officer, Auxiliary Division H. June 1959 - June 1960 - Nuclear Power Engineering School and Prototype Student I. June 1960 - June 1962 - Chief Engineman, Nuclear Power Training Unit, (SIW) Nuclear Submarine Prototype - Idaho Falls, Idaho 13.1.1-39 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR H. R. Banks J. June 1962 - October 1964 - USS Andrew Jackson, SSBN 619 -
- Leading Machinery Division Chief, supervisor in charge of operation of the nuclear power plant K. October 1964 - January 1965 - Naval Officer's Candidate School ~
L. January 1_965 - August 1968 - Nuclear Ship Superintendent - San Francisco Bay Naval Shipyard M. August 1968 - July 1970 - Resident Project Engineer - H. B.
Robinson Plant - Unit #2 - Carolina Power & Light, Power Supply Department, Hartsville, South Carolina N. July 1970 - August 1971 - Resident Project Engineer - Brunswick Plant - Units 1 & 2 - Carolina Power &
Light Company, Power Plant Design & Construction Department, Southport, North Carolina I 0. Augast 1971 - February 1972 - Manager - Quality Assurance, Power Plant Design & Construction Department, CP&L, Raleigh, North Carolina j P. February 1972 - July 1973 - Manager - Quality Asurance Audit, Special Services Department - CP&L, Raleigh, North Carolina
, Q. July 1973 - August 1975 - Manager - Quality Assurance &
Training Audit, Special Services Department - CP&L, Raleigh, North Carolina
! R. August 1975 - March 1976 - Manager - Nuclear Generation, Special Services Department - CP&L, Raleigh, North Carolina S. March 1976 - October 1979 - Manager - Nuclear Generation, t Bulk Power Supply Department, Nuclear Generation Section -
. CP&L, Raleigh, North Carolina T. October 1979 - General Manager - Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant - CP&L, Raleigh, North Carolina February 1981 - Present - Manager - Corporate Quality U.-
! Assurance - CP&L, Raleigh, North Carolina III. Professional Societies ,
< A. ASME Standards Committee - N45-2.12 & N45.2.23
- 5. EEI Nuclear Manpower Comeittee C. SEE Production Section
- - D. EPRI - Steam Generator Owners Group 13.1.1-40 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR l l
W. V. Coley, Manager, Engineering & Construction Support Services
- 1. Education & Training A. B.E.E. Degree in Electrical Engineering from North Carolina
. State University - 1958 B. "Public Utility Executive Course" - Georgia Institute of Technology - 1971 C. Various Management and Supervisory courses II. Experience A. February 1951 - February 1955 - U. S. Navy, Shipboard Electrical Work - Entered service as Seaman. Attended Class "A" Electrician School. At time of discharge was First Class Electrican 4
B. June 1955 - September 1955 and June 1956 - September 1956 -
Patton Electric Company - Summer work in commercial, industrial and electrical wiring C. June 1957 - September 1957 and December 1957 - April 1958 -
r CP&L Temporary Student Worker in District Operations
, D. June 1958 - February 1959 - Florida Power & Light Company -
Distribution Engineer E. February 1959 - January 1960 - Cadet Manager - CP&L, Dunn District Office
- 1. January 1960 - April 1961 - Assistant to District Manager - CP&L, Dunn District Office
- F. April 1961 - July 1962 - Assistant to District Manager -
CP&L, Hartsville District Office C. July 1962 - June 1963 - Assistant to District Manager -
CP&L, Henderson District. Office H. June 1963 - May 1968 - Industrial Development Agent - CP&L, Industrial Development Section of Area Development in Florence, South Carolina I. May 1968 - March 1972 - Director, CP&L Industrial Development for North Carolina. Located in General Of fice,
- Raleigh, North Carolina J. March 1972 - June 1974 - Manager - CP&L, Area Development ,
Department - Located in General Office, Raleigh, North
, Carolina 13.1.1-41 Amendment No. 13 L
+ -
SENPP FSAR W. V. Coley l K. June 1974 - June 1977 - Assistant to Department Head - CP&L, Power Plant Construction Department. Located in General Of fice, Raleigh, North Carolina L. June 1977 - Present - Manager - CP&L, Engineering &
Construction Support Services Department. Located in General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina.
III. Professional Societies None C
13.1.1-42 4 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR l
Walter J. Hurford, Manager; Fuels Department
- 1. Education & Training A. BS Degree in Metallurgical Engineering - Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, PA (1942)
- 8. SM Degree in Industrial Management - Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Boston, MA (1960)
II. Experience A. 1949 - 1976 - Manager - Light Water Breeder Reactor Core '
Activity - Westinghouse Bettis Laboratory (Westinghouse Electric Corporation) 13 B. 1976 - 1981 - Vice President Corporate Production - Wyoming Mineral Corporation (Westinghouse Electric Corporation)
C. 1981 - 1982 - Manager of Production - Western Zirconium Division (Westinghouse Electric Corporation)
D. January 1983 - Employed at Carolina Power & Light Company as Manager - Technical Services Department in the Power Supply Group located in the General Of fice, Raleigh, NC L
( III.
E. September 1983 - Maneger - Fuels Department, General Office, Raleigh, NC Professional Societies A. American Society for Metals g.
13.1.1-43 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR R. B. Richey, Manager - Materials Management Department I. Education A. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana - M.S.
Industrial Engineering, 1970.
B. U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland - B.S.
Engineering, 1964.
II. Experience A. U.S. Navy
- 1. 1964 - 1969 - Nuclear Submarine Officer B. Babcock & Wilcox Company
- 1. August 1970 - June 1971 - Senice Analyst-Capital,
. financial and marketing forecasting and analyses.
- 2. June 1971 - December 1972 - Manager,. Product &
Marketing Planning-Commercial development of new products.
- 3. December 1972 - May 1974 - Manager, Materials & Operations I3 Control-Nuclear fuel production & materials management.-
- 4. May 1974 - March 1975 - Manager, Business Analysis-Fuel cycle business evaluations and purchase negotiations.
- 5. March 1975 - April 1977 - Manager, Export Business-Marketing and sales of power equipment to Europe and Middle East.
- 6. April 1977 - November 1982 - Manager, Customer Parts &
Services-Profit center management of maintenance materials to utilities.
C. Carolina Power & Light Company
- 1. November 1982 - September 1983 - Manager, Materials Control Section, Materials Management Department, Raleigh, N.C.
- 2. September 1983 - Present - Manager, Materials '
Management Department, Raleigh, N.C.
III. Professional Societies A. North Carolina Society of Engineers
, B. American Production & Inventory Control Society
- - C. International Materials Management Society Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR I
I T. J. Allen, Manager - Planning and Control
'I. Education A. Oregon State University - Corvallis, Oregon - 1967 -
B. S. Civil. Engineering B. Portland State University - Portland, Oregon - M.B.A.,
1977 II. Experience A. 1967 - Project Engineer and Maintenance Engineer -
Shell Chemical Company B. 1973 - Design Supervisor - Simpson Timber Company C. 1974 - Planning and Scheduling Engineer - Trans-Alaska Pipeline System D. 1977 - Supervisor '3chedule Control and Reporting -
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System E. 1977 - Personal Consulting - Risk Analysis of the Manageability of the Canadian Arctic Gas Field Plan 13 for Construction of the Gas Line Project F. 1978 - Associate - Theodore Barry & Associates - General Management Consulting to the Utility Industry G. 1979 - Sr. Associate - Theodore Barry and Associates - Audits of Power Plant Construction for Both Utilities and State Utility Commissions H. 1981 - Managing Associate - Theodore Barry & Associates I. 1982 - Manager of Field Planning and Scheduling - Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Project s J. 1982 - Assistant to the Executive Vice-President - Special Assignment to the Brunswick Plant K. 1983 - Manager - Planning and Control Section -
Harris Nuclear Project III. Professional Societies A. Project Management' Institute B. Member - Sigma TAU - Engineering Honorary C. Professional Engineer - Oregon - No. 9293 13.1.1-45 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR A. G. Bullard, Jr. , Manager, Research Section
> 1. Education A. N.C. State University, B.S. in Chemical Engineering - 1956 B. N.C. State University, M.S. in Nuclear Engineering - 1959 C. N.C. State University, Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering - 1967 D. United States Army Ordnance Guided Missile School, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama Experience Prior to Joining CP&L A. 1956 - 1958 - Graduate Study, N.C. State University; completed requirements for M.S. Degree in Nuclear Engineering B. 1958 - 1959 - United States Ordnance Corps: Basic ordnance officer training and guided missile officer training schools C. 1959 - 1961 - U.S. Army Officer, Nuclear Effects Engineer, United States Army Ordnance Corps: Conducted transient radiation effects studies on guided missile system and components 13
( D. 1961 - 1963 - Reactor Engineer - USAEC: Participation in administration and planning of reactor start-up operations for the experimental gas cooled reactor E. 1963 - 1966 - Craduate Study - N.C. State University: Completed requirements for Ph.D. Degree in Nuclear Engineering F. 1966 - 1972 - Assistant Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute: Responsible for graduate and undergraduate instruction in Nuclear Engineering. Research in nuclear reactor design and nuclear fuel management. Reactor
. Operator Training Instructor in Special Program by VPI and B&W for Arkansas Power and Light Company G. 1969 - USAEC Sunumer Research Participation Program H. 1970 - 1972 - Technical Consultants, Inc. : Nuclear fuel management consulting in areas of computer code development and computer applications to nuclear reactor design analysis I. 1972 - Present - Member of EPRI Fossil Fuels Task Force, EPRI ,
Advanced Power Systems Division Committee, EPRI Nuclear Power Division Committee, EPRI Research Advisory Committee, and the North Carolina Energy Institute Board of Scientific Advisors L
r 13.1.1-46 Amendment No. 13
i SHNPP FSAR I
A. G. Bullard, Jr.
Experience with CP&L A. 1972 - 1976 - Director of Research, Special Services Department; responsible for coordination of CP&L involvement in research B. 1976 - 1979 - Manager, Technical and Research Services:
Responsible for providing specialized technical expertise in support of Company activities, providing a program of Company research and development, and coordinating internal and external research involvement of the Company C. 1979 - 1982 - Director of Research, Corporate Nuclear Safety &
13 Research Department: Responsible for manageneent and/or conduct of selected in-house research, coordination of CP&L involvement in research, and assessment of new power generation alternatives and alternate energy sources.
D. 1982.- Present - Mancger of Research, Corporate Nuclear Safety &
Research Department III. Professional Affiliations & Achievements A. American Nuclear Society B. American Institute of Chemical Engineers C. EPRI Advanced Systems Division Committee 13.1.1-47 Amendment No. 13
9 SHNPP FSAR I
R. M. Coats, Assistant to the Group Executive, Fossil Generation & Power g3 Transmission 1 I. Education & Training A.' 8. S. Degree in Chemical Engineering from North Carolina State University, 1967 B. Attended graudate school at North Carolina State University until January 1968 C. Attended site lecture series of Westinghouse training program II. Experience A. June 1965 to August 1967 - Research Assistant in Nu clear Engineering Department, North Carolina State University B. September 1967 to January 1968 - Graduate Student Laboratory Instructor, North Carolina State University, (Chemical)
C. January 1968 to February 1970 - Chemical Engineer, Carolina.
Power & Light Company, Design & Contruction Section, General Of fice, Raleigh, Norcth Carolina.
( D. February 1970 to July 1971 - Radiochemical Engineer, Technical Services Department - CP&L E. July 1971 to April 1972 - Senior Chemical Engineer,
, Power Plant Design & Construction Department, Nuclear Design Section - CP&L F. April 1972 to August 1975 - Principal Engineer, Power Plant Engineering & Construction Department, Nuclear Plant Engineering Section - CP&L G. August 1975 to October 1976 - Principal Engineer, Staff Services ' Unit, Of fice of Assistant to Group Executive, EC&O Group - CP&L
~
H. October 1976 to January 1977 - Principal Engineer, Staff Services, System Planning & Coordinating Department - CP&L
- 1. January 1977 to October _1979 - Manager, Generation Service Section, Generation Department - CP&L J. October 1979 - Manager, Nuclear Operations Administrative Section, Nuclear Operations Department -
CP&L L
13.1.1-48 Amendment No. 13
, _ _ - . . .. ~_ . - _ _. _ _.. _ -_-- _ _ _ .._. _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____._ ._ _ _ . - _ _ _
SHNPP FSAR R. M. Coats
'K. Jar.uary 1981 - Manager, Nuclear Operations Administrative Section. Technical Services Department - CP&L g3 L. September 1983 - Assistant to the Group Executive, Fossil Generation & Power Transmission - CP&L III. Professional Societies A. Registered Professional Engineer, 1972, North Carolina B. Member of American Institute of Chemical Engineers s
13.1.1-49 Amendment No. 13
i SHNPP FSAR l
1 N. J. Chiangi, Manager, QlL/QC Harris Plant l
g3 I. Education A. Graduate of.Norwich Free Academy, Norwich, Connecticut B. Special Schools: Nuclear Submarine Systems, Navyships 250-1500-1, Mil. Std. 271 D-271A, Navyships 250-693-1 693-3 (structural), Health Physics Monitoring, Management Schools - Electric Boat Company, Electronics School - U.S.
Navy, Welding School - EBC, Radiography School, Magnetic Particle Testing School - EBC, Liquid Penetrant Test School - EBC, Ultra Sonic Testing Classes - EBC, Eastman Kodak School for Automatic Film Processing Equipment, Job Cost Estimating - EBC. Qualified: AEC Licensed Radiographer and Radiographer Supervisor II. Experience A. 1947 - 1952 - U. S. Navy, Sonar Man - Radar Man.
Special Training, Electronics School, Sonar School, Radio School B. 1952 - 1967 - Electric Boat Company, Groton, Connecticut
- 1. 1952 - 1954: Welding-Field Work-Piping-Structural
- 2. 1954 - 1967: Lead-Supervisor - Radiography Department. Responsible for all Nuclear Radiography-Structural-Piping-Castings, Polaris
-Missile Program, Radiographer,-Film Readers. Set up,. wrote and reviewed Radiography Test Procedures for Casting-Piping-Structural Radiography.
Instructed Piping and Mechanical design personnel, instructed Radiography Classes for New Hires, reviewed and interviewed personnel for hire.
Attended Management-Quality Control meetings.
C. 1967 - 1973.- Ebasco . Services, Inc. , New York, New York
- 1. 1967 - 1970: Quality Compliance-Quality Control Supervisor for Ebasco at H. B. Robinson NPS Unit No. 1. ' Responsible for-implew ntation of the site for the H. B. Robinson project. This included supervising Ebasco site Quality Compliance Representatives in the performance of their inspection duties in the following areas: welding, civil, electrical, nondestructive testing, receiving, storage, and testing. Responsible for the review of site purchase orders for quality requirements and documentation to assure its adequacy. Responsible for maintaining Quality Assurance documentation.
13.1.1-50 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR N. J. Chiangi
- 2. 1970 - 1972: Site Quality Compliance Supervisor for Ebasco at St. Lucie No.1 Nuclear Power Plant, with responsibility for implementing the site phase of the Ebasco Quality Program as modified for St. Lucie.
Responsible for auditing field construction activities as required by the Quality Program, auditing the performance of construction quality control tasks through the Site Quality Compliance Staff, meeting with AEC representatives in performance of their site audits, and maintaining quality compliance files as as described in the Ebasco Quality Program for representation to the client at the completion of the project.
- 3. 1972 - 1973: Senior Quality Compliance Engineer for Ebasco at Chin-Shan Unit Nos. I and 2. Had overall responsibility for Ebasco Quality Compliance Program on site. Duties at Chin-Shan site included the following:
1.nstructed personnel in inspection of welding, '
mechanical, civil and electrical functions.
Responsible for interpretation of all codes and specifications having to do with this project where compliance or control was required. Instructed and trained Taipower Personnel in Quality Compliance and Quality Control functions. Developed quality control [
and compliance programs for Taipower. Responsible for (
a vendor inspection. Interpreted all radiographs on site. Responsible for maintaining radiographs and quality assurance documentation.
D. October 1, 1973 - Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina - Employed as Quality Assurance Manager - Construction, Quality Assurance Section of the Power Plant Construction Department. Located in the General Office -
E. November,1976 - Manager, Engineering and Construction QA l Section, Technical Services Department - CP&L ;
F. March 1983 . Manager, QA/QC Harris Plant Section of the f 13 Creporate Quality Assurance Department - Harris Site, New Hill, i NC l III. Professional Societies A. Member - ASMr - ASME
- 5. Qualified ANST - Level III - 2/4/77 Radiographic - Magnetic Particle - Liquid Penetrate C. Professional Engineer - State of California, January, 1977 13.1.1-51 l Amendment No. 13
l SHNPP FSAR William J. Hindman, Jr., Manager - Harris Project Administration C, I. Education
- l A. BS Degree in Civil Engineering - Clemson University - Clemson, South Carolina, 1965 B. US Army Engineer School - Engineer Branch Officer Course, 1966 C. US Army Military Police School - Military Police Officer Course, 1971 D. US Army Engineer School - Engineer Officer Advanced Course, 1974 E. US Army Command & General Staff College - Diploma, 1978 II. Experience A. 1965 - Officer, US Army Corps of Engineers B. 1969 - Traffic Research Engineer, NC Department of 13 c Transportation C. 1974 - Employed as Senior Engineer - Staff, CP&L Power Plant Construction D. 1979 - Employed as Director - Project Analysis, CP&L Harris Site
(' Management E. 1983 - Employed as Manager - Harris Project Administration, CP&L Harris Nuclear Project III. Professional Societies A. Member of American Society of Civil Engineers B. Member of American Nuclear Society C. Registared Professional Engineer in North Carolina D. Registered Professional Engineer in South Carolina l
{s-.
l i
13.1.1-52 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR J. D. E. Jeffries - Manager - Corporate Nuclear Safety
- l. Education & Training A. BS Degree in Engineering - United States Naval Academy - 1964 B. MS Degree in Nuclear Engineering - Pennsylvania State University -
1970 C. PhD Degree in Nuclear Engineering - Pennsylvania State University -
1972 II. Experience A. June 1964 - April 1965 - Lieutenant, USMC - Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia B. May 1965 - June 1968 - Captain, USMC - Operations Of ficer - Hawk Missile Battalion and Air Control Squadron C. . July 1968 - June 1971 - Research Reactor Operator, Pennsylvania State University D. July 1971 - October 1972 - Research/ Teaching Assistant, Nuclear Technology Program, Pennsylvania State University j
( E. November 1972 - June 1973 - Employed as Senior Engineer, Licensing &
Technological Services Section, Special Services Department, Carolina
. Power & Light Company, Raleigh, NC F. June 1973 - September 1975 - Employed as Project Engineer, Nuclear Plant Engineering Section, Power Plant Engineering Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, NC G. September 1975 - June 1976 - Employed as Project Engineer, Corporate Nuclear Safety Section, Special Services Department, Carolina Power &
Light Company, Raleigh, NC H. June 1976 - December 1976 - Employed as Project Engineer, Corporate Nuclear Safety Section, Technical Services Department, Carolina Power
& Light Company, Raleigh, NC
- 1. December 1976 - November 1977 - Corporate Nuclear Safety Section, System Planning & Coordination Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, NC J. November 1977 - April 1978 - Employed as Project Engineer, Corporate Nuclear Safety & QA Audit Section, System Planning & Coordination Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, NC L .
13.1.1-53 Amer.dment No. 13
i SHNPP FSAR i
J. D. E. Jeffries '
K. . April 1978 - Employed as Principal Engineer, h ciear Safety, CNS&QAA Section, System Planning & Coordination Department, Carolina Power &
Light Company, talefgh, NC L. August 1979 - Employed as Principal Engineer, hciear Safety, CNS&QAA Section, Nuclear Safety & Research Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, NC M. June 1980 - Employed as Principal Engineer, Corporate Nuclear Safety Section, Corporate Nuclear Safety & Research Department, Carolina Power & Light Cogany, Raleigh, NC N. August 1981 - Employed as Manager - Corporate Nuclear Safety Section, Corporate Nuclear Safety & Research Department, Carolina Power &
Light Company, Raleigh, NC III. Professional Societies A. American Nuclear
- Society B. Society of the Sigma Xi C. Scientific Research Society of North America D. Raleigh Engineers Club F. . Health Physics Society - North Carolina Section 6
\
13.1.1-54 Amendment No. 13
1 l
SHNPP FSAR I
l L-J. W. Kirk, General Manager, System Operations I. Education .
NCSU - B.S. Degree in Electrical Engineering, 1968 A.
13 i
f II. Experience A. June,1967, to May,1968, employed as a scamer and part-time employee in the Transmission & Jistribution Department, Raleigh District Engit. .ering Of fice - CP&L B. June 1968, to June,1969, employed as a Junior Engineer in the Transmission & Distribution Dep artment, Raleigh District Engineering Office - CP&L C. July, 1969, to October, 1970, employed as an Electrical l Engineer in the Transmission & Distribution Department, l Raleigh District Engineering Of fice - CP&L D. November, 1970, to July,1971, employed as an Electrical Engineer in the Engineering Unit of the Transmission &
Distribution Department. Located in Asheboro, N.C. - CP&L E. August, 1971, to February, 1972, employed as an Electrical Engineer in the System Planning Section of the Engineering
( F.
Department. Located in the General Office - CP&L February, 1972, to September, 1973, employed as a Senior Engineer in the System Planning & Cost Control Section of the System Engineering & Construction Department.
Located in the General Of fice - CP&L
'O G. September,1973,' to August 2,1975, employed as Principal Engineer - Cost Control, in the System Plann'.ng & Cost Control Section of the System Engineering & Construction Department. Located in the General Of fice - CP&L H. August 2, 1975, to September 18, 1976, employed as Principal Engineer - Generation Planning, in the System Planning & Cost Control Section of the System Engineering and Construction Department. Located in the General Office - CP&L I. September 18, 1976, to January 1, 1977, employed as a Principal Engineer in the System Operations &
Maintenance Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department.
Located in the General Of fice - CP&L L .
13.1.1-55 Amendment No. 13
i SHNPP FSAR !
I J. W. Kirk i J. January 1, 1977, to April 22, 1978, employed as a N Principal En.tineer in the Administrative Unit of the System Operations & Maintenance Department located La ,
the General Office - CP&L '
K. April 22,1978, to June 1,1979, employed as Manager -
Energy Control Center in the System Operations Section of the System Operations & Maintenance Department located at the Energy control Center - CP&L L. June 1, 1979, to November 3, 1979, employed as Manager -
System Operations & Maintenance in the System Operations
& Maintenance Department, Power Supply Group located in the Ceneral Office - CP&L M. November 3,1979, to Present, egloyed as General Manager -
System Operations in the System Operations Department located in the General Offies - CP&L I
III. Professional Societies A. - North Carolina Society of Engineers R. Raleigh Engineer's Club g3 C. National Society of Professional Engineers i ,
I l
l l
13.1.1-56 I I
Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR L. I. Loflin, Manager, Engineering - Harris Plant 13 C .
I. Education +
A. B. S. Degree in Electrical Engineering from Clemson University - February, 1964 B. Professional Degree in Nuclear Engineering from North Carolina State University - June, 1969 C. Reactor Operator Training Programs
- 1. Westinghouse Corporation, Saxton Plant:
AEC Senior Reactor Operator License February,1970 ,
- 2. Virginia Electric and Power Company, Surry Plant:
AEC Senior Reactor Operator License, April,1972 II. Experience A. 1960 to 1963 - Duke Power Company
- 1. Three summer work periods at Buck Steam Plant, .
Spencer, North Carolina
- 2. One summer work period at Greenville, South
( B.
Carolina, Distribution Engineering Of fice February, 1964 to June, 1973 - Virginia Electric and Power Company j
i 1. Assistant Engineer, Yorktown Power Plant (two 165 MWe fossil fired units): February, 1964 to November, 1964
- 2. Assistant Engineer: November,1964 to May,1965 Associate Engineer: May, 1965 to May, 1967 Engineer: January, 1967 to May, 1967 Mt. Storm Power Plant (two 565 MWe fossil fired units)
- i. 3. Engineering Supervisor, Mt. Storm Power Plant:
May, 1967 to September,-1968 ,
- 4. Staf f Engineer, Richmond, Virginia:
September,1968 to June, 1969 Assigned to North Carolina State University
- 5. Assistant Operating Supervisor, Surry Nuclear Power
! Plant (two 2441 MWt Pressurized Water Reactors):
l June, 1969 to September,1972 I 13.1.1-57 Amendment No. 13
SENPP FSAR L. I. Loflin
- 6. Operating Supervisor, Surry Nuclear Power Plant (two
- 2441 MWt Pressurized Water Reactors): September, 1972 to June, 1973 C. June 1973 to July 1974 - Principal Engineer, Power Plant Engineering Department - CP&L D. July, 1974 to August, 1975 - Principal Engineer, Brunswick Startup - CP&L E. August, 1975 to June, 1976 - Manager - Corporate Nuclear Safety Section. Special Services Department - CP&L P. June,1976 to November 30, 1976 - Manager - Corporate Nuclear Safety Section, Technical Services Department -
CP&L G. December, 1976 - Manager - Corporate Nuclear Safety Section, System Planning & Coordination Department - CP&L H. December 14, 1976 - Transferred to Power Plant Engineering Department as Manager - Nuclear Plant Engineering
- 1. January 13, 1977 - Reassigned as Manager of Engineering Pool Section of the Power Plant Engineering Department -
CP&L J. December, 1979 - Assigned as Manager, Harris Plant 13 l Engineering Section - CP&L III. Professional Societies A. ANS
- 8. P.E. - California - 1976 13.1.1-58 Amendment No. 13 L_-_____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
SHNPP FSAR I.. H. Martin, Manager, Nuclear Fuel Section j I. Education 1
A. B. S. Degree in Nuclear Engineering - North Carolina State University - 1965 4 B. M. B. A. Degree - University of South Carolina - 1971 II. Experience A. 1965 to 1970 - Nuclear-related work - Sayannah River Plant ,
B. April 1972 - July 1973 - Senior Engineer - Carolina Power &
Light Company, Bulk Power Supply Department, Fuel Section, General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina C. July 1973 - August 1974 - Principal Engineer -
Surveillance & Accountability (In-Training) Bulk Power Supply Department, Fuel Section - CP&L D. August 1974 - January 1977 - Principal Engineer -
Surveillance & Accountability Bulk Power Supply Department, Fuel Section - CP&L E. January 1977 - May 1977 - Principal Fuel Analyst, Fuel Department, Fuel Analysis Unit - CP&L F. May 1977 - Present - Manager - Nuclear Fuel, Fuel Department, Nuclear Fuel Section - CP&L III. Professional Societies A. Registered Professional Engineer - North Carolina - 1975 B. Member of American Nuclear Society C. Member of Institute for Nuclear Materials Management L
13.1.1-59 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR R. L. Mayton, Manager, Corporate Health Physics g3
- 1. Education A. M. S. Degree in Nuclear Engineering - North Carolina State University - 1965
- 8. - 8. S. Degree in Nuclear Engineering - North Carolina State University - 1963 II. Experience A. _ June, 1962 to September,1962 - Engineering Assistant -
L. E. Wooten & Company B. June, 1963 to September,1963 - Engineer - Nuclear Power Division - Charleston Naval Shipyard C. June, 1964 to August, 1965 - North Carolina State University - Teaching nuclear physics laboratory while attending college D. August, 1965 to June, 1968 - Engineer responsible for technical assistance to production department at Savannah River Project
( E.
F.
June, 1968 to February,1971 - Senior Engineer Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh February, 1971 to November,1971 - Principal Nuclear Licensing Engineer - Environmental & Technical Services Section, Generation & System Operations Department - CP&L, Raleigh l
C. November, 1971 to June, 1976 - Principal Nuclear Licensing Engineer - Environmental & Technical Services Section, Special Services Department - CP&L, Raleigh H. June, 1976 to December,1976 - Manager - Corporate Health Physics - Technical Services Department - CP&L, Raleigh I. December, 1976 to November,1977 - Manager - Corporate Health Physics - System Planning & Coordination Department - CP&L, Raleigh J. November,1977 - Director - Corporate Health Physics - System Planning & Coordination Department - CP&L, l Raleigh i
K. August, 1979 - Director - Corporate Health Physics - Corporate Nuclear Safety & Research Department - CP&L, Raleigh 13 L
13.1.1-60 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR R. L. Mayton
- L. August, 1982 - Manager - Corporate Health Physics - Corporate 13 Nuclear Safety & Research Department - CP&L, Raleigh III. Professional Societies f
A. Member of American Nuclear Society B. Member of Health Physics Society C. North Carolina Society of Engineers O
.e 0
- n. i .1-a me. me.t so. u l
SHNPP FSAR l R. M. Parsons, Project General Manager - Harris Plant 13
- 1. Education-A. BS Degree in Civil Engineering from Fresno State College, 1959
- 11. Experience i ,
A. -August, 1964 to November, 1966
- 1. U. S. Forest Service, Nevada City, California
- a. Forest service representative on hydroelectric developments built on forest service land by others.
B. November, 1966 to September, 1973
- 1. Ebasco Services Inc., Hartsville, South Carolina; and Jensen Beach, Florida
- a. November,1966 - Field Engineer on construction of H. B. Robinson Unit No. 2 (700 MW Westinghouse PWR nuclear power plant).
- b. November, 1967 - Rasident Engineer responsible for
( site engineering and quality control for construction of H. B. Robinson Unit 2.
- c. April, 1971 - Senior Resident Engineer responsible for all site engineering for construction of St. Lucie Unit No. 1 (810 MW combustion engineering PWR nuclear power plant).
C. September, 1973 to May, 1974
- 1. Daniel Construction, Jenkinsville, South Carolf na
- a. Site Manager of Engineering responsible for all site engineering for construction of V. C. Summer Nuclear Power Plant.
j ,
D. June, 1974 to September, 1976
- 1. Ebasco Services, Elma, Washington
- a. Senior Resident Engineer responsible for all site engineering on 1300 MW PWR nuclear power plant.
L
. 13.1.1-62 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR R. M. Parsons C
E. September 20, 1976, to Present
- 1. Carolina Power & Light Company
- a. September 20, 1976 - Employed as Site Manager in the Nuclear Construction Section of the Power Plant Construction Department. Located at the Harris site, New Rill, N. C.
- b. April 27,1979 - Reclassified as Site Manager (Harris) in the Harris Site Management Section of the Power Plant Construction Department. Located at the Harris site, New Hill, N. C.
- c. May 3, .1980 - Reclassified as Site Manager - Harris Plant Construction in the Harris Site Management Section of the Power Plant Construction Department.
Located at the Harris site, New Hill, N. C.
- d. January 31, 1981 - Reorganization - Site Manager -
Harris Plant in the Harris Site Management Section of the Nuclear Plant Construction Department Located at the Harris Site, New Hill, N.C.
13 e. March 22, 1982 - Title changed to Project General Manager III. Professional Societies A. American Society of Civil Engineers B. Registered Professional Engineer in North Carolina, Ca11fornia, South Carolina, Floriaa, and washington 13; 13.1.1-63 Amendment No. 13 he mm i
SHNPP FSAR R. L. Sanders, Manager, Engineering Support, Nuclear PlantsSection I l13
- 1. Education A. B.S. Degree in Engineering, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y., 1953 B. M.S. Degree in Nuclear Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. 1958 C. Lynchburg College, Lynchburg, Virginia, 18 semester hours in the MBA Program, 1967 to 1969 (night school)
II. Experience A. 1953 to 1956 - Commissioned 2nd Lt. regular army from West Point B. 1958 to 1961 - Technical Engineer, General Electric Company, Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Department, Cincinnati, Ohio C. 1961 to 1966 - Senior Engineer, Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg, Virgini-t
- 1. 1966 to 1968 - Supervisor of Analytical Methods and
( 2.
Programs iri the Fuel Analysis and Management Department, Babcock & Wilcox, Lynctiourg, Virginia 1968 to 1969 - Supervisor of Fuel Management - Babcock
& Wilcox, Lynchburg, Virginia
- 3. 1969 to,1970 - Manager of Fuel Contracts Management, Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg, Virginia D. 1970 to 1972 - Manager of Fuel Management Section, Nuclear Fuel Services, Rockville, Maryland
- 1. 1972 to 1973 - Manager of Projects, Nuclear Fuel Services - Rockville, Maryland E. May 1973 to August 1973 - Staff Assistant, Environmental &
Technical Services Section, Special Services Department, CP&L, Raleigh, North Carolina F. August 1973 - Director of Nuclear Licensing, Environinental & Technical Services Section, Special ,
Services Department - CP&L G. June 1976 - Manager, Environmental Technology Section.
Technical Services Department - CP&L 13.1.1-64 Amendment No. 13 l 1
SHNFP FSAR R. L. Sanders H. June 1979 - Manager, Engineering Support Section,
- Technical Services Departm nt - CP&L
- 1. December 1979 - Manager, Engineering Support Nuclear Power Plants Section - CP&L 13 J. December 1983 - Manager, Engineering Support, Nuclear PlantsSection I III. Professional Societies ,
A. ANS
- 8. Registered Professional Engineer 13.1.1-65 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR Scott Filmore Stidham, Manager - Contract Services I. Education A. B.S. Degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University - 1950 B. Graduate of Industrial Management Course, LaSalle Extension
, Institute, LaSalle University, Danville, VA - 1952 C. Graduate of Executive Development Program, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA - 1958 D. Graduate of Senior Seminar in management, Hershey, PA - 1976 II. Experience A. June 1950 - September 1953 - Dan River Mills, Danville, VA
- 1. Employed as Industrial Engineer (1950)
- 2. Promoted to Labor Relations Representative (1952)
B. September 1953 - October 1972 - Reynolds Metals Company -
13 Louisville, KY & Richmond, VA
- 1. Employed as Industrial Engineer (1953)
- 2. Promoted to Sr. Industrial Engineer in Charge of Facility Planning (1958)
- 3. Promoted to Operations Manager, Fabricated Products (1964)
- 4. Promoted to Administrative Manager of Sheet, Plate, Wire, Rod & Bar Plants (1969)
C. November 1972 - July 1980 - Texasgulf, Inc. - Washington, NC &
Raleigh, NC
- 1. Employed as Assistant General Manager for Administration, Phosphate, Operations (1972)
- 2. Promoted to Administrative Manager of Agricultural Products Division (1975)
- 3. Promoted to Administrative Manager of the Texasgulf Chemicals Company (1979) i L
13.1.1-66 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR Scatt Stidham C
a -
D. January 1981 - Present, Carolina Power & Light Company, General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina:
- 1. Employed as Project Specialist - Special Projects in 1 Nuclear Operations Administration Section of the Nuclear Operations Department - January 1981
- 2. Transferred to the Technical Services Department as Project Specialist - Administration in the Nuclear Operations
, Administration Section and appointed Unit Head -
Administrative - February 1981 13
- 3. Transferred as Project Specialist - Administration to the Power Supply Group Staff in charge of the Contracts Unit -
March 1982.
- 4. Appointed Project Manager - Contracts Study Team to design a new centralized contracting organization - June 1982
- 5. Promoted to Manager - Contract Services Section, Fuel &
Materials Management Group - January 1983
- 6. Manager - Contract Services Section, Operations Support Group - August 1983 i
13.1.1-67 Amendment No. 13
g."
SHNPP FSAR A. C. Tollison, Jr. , Manager - Nuclear Training Section
- 1. Education & Training A. U. S. Navy Schools
- 1. Navy Nuclear Power Program Submarine School - 1964 B. Industry Training
- 1. SRO (PWR) - 1971 C. Marion High School, Marion, SC - 1960 D. University of South Carolina - BS Chemical Engineering - 1964 II. Experience A. U. S. Navy - 1964 to 1970 (Commander)
., 1. 1966 to 1968, USS Daniel Webster (SSBN-626) - Supply Officer, E/RC Officer, Main Propulsion Assistant
- 2. 1968 to 1970, USS Grayling (SSN-646) - Communications Of ficer, Main Propulsion Assistant, Weapons Of ficer 4
B. Carolina Power & Light Company 13 i 1. 1970 - 1971 employed as Senior Engineer at H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Hartsville, SC
- 2. 1971 - 1974 employed as Engineering Supervisor at H. B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Hartsville, SC ,
- 3. 1974 to 1975 employed as Operations Supervisor at the H. B.
Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Hartsville, SC
- 4. 1976 employed as Maintenance Supervisor at the H. B.
Robinson Stesm Electric Plant, Hartsville, SC
- 5. 1976 employed as O&M Superintendent at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Southport, NC
- 6. 1976 to 1981 employed as Ceneral Manager at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Southport, NC
- 7. 1981 to 1983 on loan to Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)
- a. 1981 - Evaluator, Evaluation Team Manager, Manager - Organization & Administration Department
/
l 1
f 13.1.1-68 Amendment No. 13
1 SHNPP FSAR A. C. Tollison
- b. 1982 to 1983 - Director - Evaluation & Assistance Division 13 8. September 1983 employed as Manager - Nuclear Training, Operations Training & Technical Services Department, She^ aron Harris Energy & Environmental Center, New Hill, NC III. Professional Societies A. American Nuclear Society .
[
13.1.1-69 Amendment No. 13
i SHNPP FSAR B. H. Webster, Manager, Radiological & Chemical Support Section C .
I.' Education A. B.S. Degree in Physics from Georgetown College, 1958
[1. Experience A. August, 1958, Associate Health Physicist at gaseous diffusion plant for Union Carbide Nuclear. Company B. December, 1960, Health Physicist at General Atomic Company, hot cell facility C. October, 1962, Shift Health & Safety Engineer, Plum Brook Reactor, Controls for Radiation, Inc.
D. December,1966, Health Physicist, Piqua Nuclear Power Facility, Piqua, Ohio E. June,.1968, employed as a Senior Engineer in the Production
& System Operations Section, Operating & Engineering Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, NC F. February, 1971, employed as a Principal Radiation Control Engineer in the Environmental & Technical
( Services Section of the Generation & System Operations Department - CP&L G. December, 1971, employed as a Principal Engineer - Health Physics in the Environmental & Technical Services Section of the Generation & System Operations Department - CP&L H. July, 1972, employed as a Principal Engineer - Radiation Control in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department - CP&L
- 1. January, 1977, employed as a Director - Environmental &
Radiation Control in the Generation Services Section of the beneration Department - CP&L J. May, 1979, employed as a Generation Services Manager -
SHEEC in the Generation Services - SHEEC Section of the Generation Department (Located at the Harris Energy &
Environmental Center) - CP&L K. November, 1979, employed as Manager - Environmental &
Radiation Co'ntrol in the Nuclear Operations Department.
. (Located at the Harris Energy & Environmental Center) -
CP&L L
13.1.1-70 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR
- 8. H. Webster .
L. February,1982, employed as Manager - Kadiological & l Chemical Support Section in the Technical Services Department. (Located at the Harris Energy & Environmental Center) - CP&L M. January,1981, employed as Manager - Environmental &
Radiation Control in the Technical Services Department.
(Located at the Harris Energy & Environmental Center) -
CP&L L[I. Professional Societies A. North Carolina Chapter - Health Physics Society B. American Nuclear Society of East Carolina Section C. Power Reactor Health Physics Group
?
13.1.1-71 Amendment No. 13
m- m l
SHNPP FSAR i
13 l J. L. Willis, General Manager, Harris Plant Operations l
- 1. Education and Training A. B. S. Degree in Electrical Engineering - 1955 - U. S. Naval Academy - Annapolis, MD B. Navy Nuclear Power School - 1958 II. Experience . -
A. June 1951 - June 1979 - U. S. Navy B. August 1979 - September 1980 - Project Manager, System Development Corporation Santa Monica, CA C. September 1980 - September 1981 - Manager, Nuclear Training
- Southern California Edison Company D. October 1981 - employed as Manager - Plant Operations in the Nuclear Operations Department, Harris Plant Section.
E. April 1982 - employed as General Manager, Harris Plant Section.
III. Professional Societies A. Member of American Nuclear Society 13 B. Member of N.C. Society of Engineers t
13.1.1-72 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR Hohammed Gamal Zaalouk, Manager - Nuclear Engineering ProjectsSection I. Education A. B.S.. Degree in Electrical Engineering, " Electronics", Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, 1957
- 8. H.S. Degree in Nuclear Engineering, NCSU, 1962 C. Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering, NCSU, 1966 II. Experience A. 1957 - 1959 - UAR Atomic Energy Establishment, Cairo, UAR -
Reactor Construction Engineer B. 1966 - 1968 - UAR Atomic Energy Establishment, Cairo, UAR -
Assistant Professor C. 1968 - 1969 - A leave of study at the Institute for Atomic Energy, Kjeller, Norway. Conducted research in the area of reactor physics.
D. 1969 - 1972 - Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, N. C. State University
( E. November 1972 - September 1981 - Carolina Power & Light Company
- Employed as Senior Engineer, Nuclear Plant Engineering Section, Power Plant Engineering & Construction Department, 13 General Office F. January 1974 - Carolina Power & Light Company - Promoted to Project Engineer, Nuclear Plant Engineering Section (I) of the Power Plant Engineering Department, General Of fice G. January 1977 - Carolina Power & Light Company - Trensferred to
. the Engineering Pool Section, Power Plant Engineering Department. General Office H. May 1977 - Carolina Power & Light Company - Promoted to Principal Engineer, Mechanical / Nuclear, in the Engineering Pool Section, Power Plant Engineering Department, General Office I. December 1979 - Carolina Power & Light Company - Transferred as Principal Engineer to the Engineering Support, Nuclear Power Plants Section, Nuclear Power Plant Engineering Department, General Office I
J. September 1981 - December 1983 - Houston Lighting & Power -
Manager of Nuclear Engineering Division, responsible for nuclear engineering design of the Ellen's Creek and South Texas
( projects.
i 13.1.1-73 Amendment No. 13 l
SHNPP FfAR Mohammed Canal Zaalouk .
K. December 1983 - Present - Carolina Power & Light Company -
Employed as Manager, Nuclear Engineering Projects, Nuclear Engineering & Licensing Department 13 III. Professional Societies A. American Nuclear Society Registered Professional Engineer, NC - 1975 8.
I l
13.1.1-74 Amendment No, 13
SENPP FSAR Sherwood R. Zimmerman - Manager, Nuclear Licensing Section C .
- 1. Education A. U.S. Naval Academy B. S. in Engineering - 1963
- 11. Experience A. December 1963 - December 1969 - U.S. Navy - Lieutenant B. December 1969 - June 1972 - Baltimore Gas and Electric Company -
Employed as an Engineer in the Nuclear / Mechanical Group, Engineering Department.
C. June 1972 - Carolina Power & Light Company
- a. Employed as a Senior-Engineer in the Special Services Department, Environmental & Technical Services Section, located in the General Office.
- b. June 1973 - Promoted to Project Engineer in the Special Services Department, Environmental & Technical Services Section, located in the General Office. 13
- c. June 1976 - Promoted to Director of the Nuclear Licensing
( d.
Unit, Technical Services Department, Licensing & Siting Section, located in the General Of fice.
January 1977 - Promoted to Manager of the Licensing &
f Siting Section. Technical Services Department, located in the General Office.
- e. December 1979 - Manager of Licensing & Permits Section (Section name change), Technical Services Department, located in the General Office.
- f. September 1983 - Transferred as Manager of Nuclear Licensing Section to the Nuclear Engineering & Licensing Department, located in the General Office.
III. Professional Societies
! "A. N. C. Society of Engineers B. American Nuclear Society Eastern Carolinas Section (Executive Board Member) ,
C. Professional Engineer - N. C.
D. Chairman, Wake County School Board Advisory Committee (Apex attendance area) i L
13.1.1-75 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR H. W. Bowles, Director - Onsite Nuclear Safety (SHNPP),
I. Education & Training l
A. BS Degree in Physics - Engineering - Washington and Lee .
University, 1969 l B. Craduate of US Navy Nuclear Power School - Mare Island, California, 1970 C. Graduate of US Navy Nuclear Power Prototype Training Facility -
Idaho Palls, Idaho, 1971 II. Experience A. May 1971 - December 1973 - US Navy, USS Henry L. Stimson (SSBN-655) and Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company.
Electrical Of ficer, Auxiliary Division Of ficer, Damage Control Assistant, Ship's Diving Officer - Engineering Officer of the Watch during 18-month overhaul and refueling operation.
B. January 1974 - Employed as Nuclear Engineer, Nuclear Plant Engineering Section II, Power Plant Engineering Department, Carolina Power &. Light Company, Raleigh, NC C. January 1975 - September 1975 - Employed as Nuclear Engineer,
( D.
Fuel Section, Bulk Power Supply Department, Carolina Power &
Light Company, Raleigh, NC September 1975 - May 1976 - Employed as Engineer III, Fuel g3 Section, Bulk Power Supply Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, NC E. May 1976 - January 1977 - Employed as Senior Engineer, Fuel Section, Bulk Power Supply Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, NC F. January 1977 - April 1979 - Employed as Senior Engineer, Nuclear Fuel Section, Fuel Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, NC G. April 1979 - September 1981 - Employed as Project Engineer, ,
Nuclear Fuel Section, Fuel Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, NC H. September 1981 - November 1982 - Employed as Project Engineer, Corporate Nuclear Safety Section, Corporate Nuclear Safety &
Research Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, NC I. November 1982 - Present - Employed as Director - Onsite Nuclear
. Safety (SHNPP), Corporate Nuclear Safety Section, Corporate Nuclear Safety & Research Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, NC L
1 13.1.1-76 Amendmenc No. 13
SHNPP FSAR H. W. Bowles III. Professional Societies !
r3 1 A. hearican Nuclear Society B. Professional Engineer of North Carolina l
~
i 13.1.1-77 Amendment No. 13 l
SHNPP FSAR S. McManus, Directoe, Nuclear Engineering Safety Review I. Education A. 5. S. Degree in Industrial Engineering - North Carolina State University - 1953 B. B. S. Degree in Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Mathematics - North Carolina State University - 1960 II. Experience A. January, 1956 to June, 1958 - Development Engineer -
Automatic Recorder Company B. June,1960 to May,1964 - Carolinas-Virginia Nuclear Power Associates,.Inc.
- 1. Three months at North Carolina State University in operations and analysis training on NCSCR-3 h.eterogeneous research reactor
- 2. Nine months operations training at MTR Testing Reactor, NRTS, Idaho (on loan to Phillips Petroleum Company from CVNPA)
- 3. Thirteen months writing original plant operating procedures, supervising shift during preoperational tests, writing preoperational test procedures and evaluation of plant systems
- 4. Conducted six weeke training program for operations supervisor, three shift supervisors and six technicians to prepare them for operators hot license examination
- 5. Completed term at CVTR as Shift Supervisor responsible for operation of the nuclear plant C. May, 1964 to January, 1968 - Reactor Test Engineer - AEC, Space Nuclear Propulsion Office - Jackass Flats, Nevada
- 1. Site Representative at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station of Cleveland Extension of the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office 13.1.1-78 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR S. McManus l -
- 2. Participated in development of test plans, facility requirements, facilities activation plans, and preparation and resiew of the necessary documentation j for testing of nuclese reactor enginas for Nerva 1 Project
- 3. Member of Test Specification and Procedure Review and Test Review Boards which have jurisdiction over NTO testing Test Article Design Changes
- 4. Reviewed and/or approved AEC required Safety Analysis Reports, Programmatic Test Plans, Test Specifications, Operational Procedures, and other documentation SNPO-C/NRDS Resident Office input as required D. January, 1968 to September, 1970 - Staff Engineer - AEC Division of Reactor Licensing, Operating Reactor Branch #2.
E. September, 1970 to August, 1973 - Manager - Nuclear Design Section, Power Plant Design and Construction Department -
CP&L Raleigh F. August, 1973 to December, 1976 - Manager - Nuclear Plant Engineering Section - Power Plant Engineering Department -
CP&L G. Deceeber,1976 - Manager - Corporate Nuclear Safety Section - System Planning & Coordination Department -
CP&L Raleigh H. November, 1977 - Manager - Corporate Nuclear Safety &
Quality Assurance Audit Section - System Planning &
l Coordination Department - CP&L Raleigh I. February, 1981 - Director - Nuclear Engineering Safety Review - Nuclear Plant Engineering Department - CP&L Raleigh l III. Professional Societies
(
A. American Nuclear Society 8 Registered Nuclear Engineer - California C. E.I.T. - North Carolina l
l 13.1.1-79 Amendment No. 13 l
, Table 13.1.1-1 Education and Expertence Sunenarles for Key Personnet Supporting SiNPP (as of 1984)
Appt Iceblo Name Title Education Emper lence Materlats Management R. B. Richef Manager, Matertals Management BS, Engineering 19 Years MS, Industrial Engineering Corporate Nuclear Safety & Research T. S. Ellenan Vlce President, Corporate Nuclear Saf ety BS, PhD - Physical Chemistry 27 Years
- m g & Research
- m
. A. G. Butlard Manager of Research BS Chemical Engineering 26 Years [3 m j Y MS, PhD Nuclear Engineering m
o N"
Robert L. Mayton, Jr. Manager - Corporate Health Physics BS Nucler Engineering 19 Years MS Nucfear EnginoerIng John G. Hammond Director - Nuclear Saf ety Revlow BS, Mechanical Engineering 17 Years
- MS, industrlet Management J. D. E. Jef f ries Manager - Corporate Nucteea Safety BS, Engineering 16 Yea s MS, Nuclear Engineering PhD, Nuclear Engineering N Director - Onsite Nuclear Saf ety, 94NPP BS, Physics Engineering 14 ' fear s g Harold W. Bowles
$ Harris Nuclear Project l g n
2: R. A. Watson Vice President, Harris Nuclear Project BSNE, MS Physics 27 Years
.o
7 Table 13.1.1-1 (Continued)
Education and Experience Summaries to-Key Personnel Supporting SiNPP (as of 1984)
Appftcable ,
Name TItIe Educatton Ewperlence Harets Plant Engineering L. 1. Loffln Manager, SHNPP Engineering Section BSEE, Prof esstonal NE 20 Years E . M. H arr i s, Jr. Principal Engineer - Mechanleaf BSME 13 Years J. F. NovliI Principal Engineer - Civlt BSCE 14 Years M y
N
" R. W. Prunty, Jr. Principal Engineer - Electrical BSEE 13 Years "8 I 5
$ H_arris Plant Construction g R. M. Parsons Project General Manager BSCE 18 Years 13 P. F. Foscolo Assistant Project General Manager BAS & BSME 32 Years M. F. Thompson, Jr. Senior Resident Engineer BSNE & MSNE 19 Years H. A. Shamblin Principal Engineer - Construction Contracts BSCE 28 Years g S. N. Haml f ton Manager, Construction Procurement & BS Science 31 Years
$ Contracting R. W. Via Directo - Construction Services BSEE 14 Years y R. K. Stephens Director - Electrical Construction High School Diploma 27 Years A. H. Rager Site Superintendent - Night Shlf t High School Diploma 15 Years T. H. Perdue Principal Engineer - Outlying Structures OSCE 29 Years G. M. Simpson Principal Construction Speclat tst - Inspection High School Diploma 15 Years
Table 13.1.1 1 (Continued)
Education and Exper tence Summartes for Key Personnel Supporting SHNPP j (as of 1984)
Ap p! ! cable Name Title Education Exper t ence '
Harris Plant Construction (Continued)
E. E. Willet Resident Engineer - Mechanical BSME 23 Years ,
R. Hanf ord Resident Engineer - MetallurgyNelding BS Met 25 Years A. Cockertil Resident Engineer - Electrical BSEE & MSEE 22 Years !,
W. E. Seyler Resident Engineer - Civlt (Start-up) BSCE & MS San Eng 13 Years r.n 5
13 Years M
." J. W . McKay Principal Engineer - Civil BSCE ,
m i M I 13 Resident Engineer - Instrumentation / Equipment 19 Years
$ T. W. Johnson BSEE R. R. Johnson Construction Ma.' eager BSCE 21 Years t
Harris Plant Operations J. L. Willis Plant General Manager, Harris *BSEE 26 Years j l
Harris Project Adelnistration W. J. k indnen, Jr. Manager - Harris Project Administration BSCE 18 Years i-to E R. E. Gurganus Director - Project Analysis MBA 11 Years D
D Harris Project Planning and Controls
- 2:
- 0 T. J. Allen Manager - Planning and Controls BS Civil Engineering 17 Years Engineering & Construction Support Services W V. Coley, Jr. Manager - E&C Support Services BEE in Elect. Engineering 10 Years
Tabf e 13.1.1-1 (2ntinued) 1 Education and Experlence Summe-les f or Key Personnel Supporting SHNPP (as of 1984)
Appf tcente '
Name Title Education Exper tence Nuclear Engineerina & Llconstna i
A. B. Cutter Vice President, Noetcar Engineering BSCE 22 Years
& Licensing MS Nuclear Science ,
& Engineering S. R. Zimmerman Meneger, Nuclear Licensing Section BS Engineering 21 Years G. S. Cashell Principal Licensing Engineer BA Chemistry /Blology 12 Years N E
co Samuel McManus Director, Nuclear Engineering Safety Revlow BS, Industrial Englneering 24 Years 13' %
BS, Nucfear Engineering i
R. L. Sanders Manager, EngInoer1ng Support Nuc! ear BS, EnginoerIng 25 Years Plants Section i MS, Nuclear Engineering W. W. Price Principal Engineer, Electrical . BS, Electrical Engineering 13 Years W. P. Tomlinson Principal Engineer, Mechanical BS, Nuclear Engineering 13 Years g M. L. Bridges, Jr. Principal Engineer, Mechanical BS, Nucteer Engineering 16 Years 0 t a M. G. Zealouk Manager, Nuclear Engineering Projects BS, Ef ectrical Engineering 27 Years MS, Nuclear Engineering rt PhD, Nuc! ear EnginoerIng h
H. Hines Principal Engineer, Mechanical / Electrical BS, Chemist y 22 Years
, y BS, Nucfear Engineering D. Koss Principal Engineer, Civil 9S, Civil Engineering 11 Years MS, Wate- Resources '
i Engineering
--~ - - . _ - _-_____ ___ -__-
Table 13.1.1-1 (Continued)
Education and Exper tence Sunenaries for Key Personnel Supporting StNPP (as of 1984)
Appl Icable Name Title Education Ex per lance Transmission E. S. Noell, Jr. Vice President-Transulssion BSEE 34 Years Operations Trainina & Technical Services B. J. Furr Vice President, Operations Training BS Mechanical Engineering - 22 Yers
& Technict! Services w en
." R. G. Black, Jr. Director, Emergency Preparedness BS Industrial Engineering 14 Years
.~ m 7 B. H. Webster Manager, Radlologlcal & Chemical Support BS Physics 26 Years 13 g
$ Section A. C. Tollison, Jr. Manager, Nuclear Tralning Section DS ChamIcal Engineering 19 Yers Nuclear Staf f Support Section I
J. L. Harness Manager - Nuclear Staf f Support Section BS Physical Science 24 Years (Physics & Math)
MS Radiation Biology Environmental Services Section j Russell B. Starkey Manager - Environmental Services Section BS Physics 20 Years a
T. J. Crawf ord Principal Engineer - Permits BS Civlt Engineering 10 Years
- 4 MS Civil Engineering
- 8. J. Ward Principal Scientist, Biology BS, MS, PhD 11 Years L. L. Bell Principal Scientist, Analytical-Air Quality BA 32 Years
f O' ,
Table 13.1.1-1 (Continued)
Education and Experience Sumnerles f or Key Personr:sf Supporting SiNPP (as of 1984) 3 ApptIcebte Name Title Education Exper tence System Operations J. W. Kirk General Manager, Systen Operations BS Electrical Engineering 16 Years C. M. Clark -
Manager, System Operations High School Diploma 36 Years J. M. Robinson Manager, Transelssion Line Malntenance BS Electrical Engineering 16 Years l tn C C. E. Gustafson Manager, Transelssion Substation Maintenance Bachelor of Engineering 35 Years w m Fuel g-13 g W. J. Hurford Manager - Fuel Department BS Metallurgical Engineering 36 Years ,
SM Industrial Management L. H. Martin Manager - Nuclear BS Nuclear Engineering 18 Years Fuel Section MBA j W. M. Stocks Manager - Adelnistration BS Nuclear Engineering 17 Years and Analysis MS Nuclear Engineering g B. J. Gltnick Principal Engineer BS Nuclear Engineering 11 Years j g MS Nuclear Engineering o.
k R. K. Kunita Principal Engineer BS Physics 18 Years
& MS Nuclear Science 2: & Engineering
?
-w R. G. Matthews Principal Engineer BS Electrical Engineering 25 Years u
+
__ --- - _- J
P A .
O Table 13.1.1-1 (Continued)
Education and Expe-lence Summartes f or Key Personnet Supporting SiNPP '
(as of 1984)
ApptIceblo Name Title Education Ex per tence Corporate Quality Asstrance Department H. R. Banks Manager High School Diploma 34 Years J. M. Johnson Assistant to the Department Head High School Diploma 33 Years f or Special Projects N. J. Chiangl Manager, QA/QA Harris Plant High School Diploma 32 Years en h G. L. Forehand Director QA/QC - Harris Plant High School Diploma 28 Years
- a 7 L. E. Jones Director QA/QC - B unswick Plant BS Metat furgical 15 Years , y g EnginoerIng ,
g3 g C. R. Osman Principal QA/QC Specialist (NDE) BS Engineering Physics 15 Years K. V. H ate' Principat QA/QC Engineer MS Matarlais Engineering 13 Years ,
MS Management i
! J. V. Galley Principal Vendor Survelliance Specialist H. S. Diploma 24 Years i e i
C. A. Rosenberger Principat QA Specialist - Perf ormance BS Agricultural Engineering 31 Years i g Evaluation U
- n. D. A. McGaw Superintendent QA BS Mechanical Engineering 11 Years a
rv M. Vernon Superintendent QA High School Diploma 22 Years h
- Howard Love Principat QA Speclafist - Training and BS Chemistry 29 Yeces
[ Administ ation BS Electrical Engineering C. L. McKenzle Principat QA Engineer BS Industelat Engineering 12 Years R. E. Lumsden Manager QA Services BS Marine Engineering 26 Years l
- - - - - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .s
l SENPP FSAR 13.1.2 OPERATING ORGANIZATION 13.1.2.1 Introduction l 1
The SHNPP organization is based on the considerable experience that CP&L has operating its three nuclear units, Robinson Unit No. 2 and Brunswick Units 1 and 2. Carolina Power & Light Company will comply with ANSI N18.7-1976,
" Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants," as indicated in Section 1.8, in the operation and administration or the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. The succession of responsibility in the event of absences, incapacitation of personnel, or other emergencies are outlined by the orgcnizstion chart (Fig.13.1.2-1). The staff loading schedule is shown in Table 13.1.2-1.
13.1.2.2 Personnel Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities 13.1.2.2.1 General Manager - Harris Plant Operations The General Manager - Harris Plant Operations Section is responsible for all phases of plant management, including administration, operation, maintenance, and technical support. He manages and controls the organization through personal contact with the five unit heads and through written reports, meetings, conferences, and in plant inspections. He is responsible for adherence to all requirements of the operating license, technical specifications, Corporate Quality Assurance Program, and Corporate Health
( Physics and Nuclear Safety policies. He is responsible for reviewing incoming and _ outgoing correspondence with the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement concerning the Harris Plant; the establishment and approval of qualification requirements for all Harris Plant Operations staff positions; the personal review of the qualifications of specific personnel for managerial and supervisory positions in the Harris Plant Operations Section; and the review of and concurrence in the plant 13
, radiation protection, radiological security, quality assurance, fire
- protection, training, operations, and maintenance programs. He is supported in these responsibilities by the Assistant to the General Manager, Manager -
Plant Operations, Manager - Technical Support, the Manager - Startup and Test, and Director - Regulatory Compliance. He has the authority to issue procedures, standing orders, and special orders. In the planned absence of f-the General Manager, he will designate either the Manager - Plant Operations, the Manager - Technical Support, or the-Assistant to the General Manager to assume his authority and responsibilities. Otherwise, the Manager - Plant Operations will assume these authorities and responsibilities. The General Manager - Harris Plant Section reports directly to the Vice President - Harris Nuclear Project Department.
13.1.2.2.2 Administration Unit The Administration Unit provides support functions such as security, procedure control, and emergency preparedness.
Further information is contained in the TMI appendix.
1 13.1.2-1 Amendment No. 13
i
- SHNPP FSAR The Assistant to the General Manager provides direct support to the Plant l General Manager in the areas of security, emergency preparedness, procedure development and control, personnel administration and plant administrative coordination; directs plant security planning and activities; directs emergency preparedness planning and activities at the plant staff level; supervises the preparation, review, approval and distribution of plant
-procedures and directives. He is assisted in these duties by an Administrative Supervisor, Senior Specialist - Security, and a Senior Specialist - Emergency Preparedness. The Assistant to the General Manager reports to the General Manager - Harris Plant.
1 ' The Administrative Supervisor supervises the administrative functions of the i- plant including incoming correspondence screening and action assignment; action tickler development and follow-up; outgoing correspondence preparation, screening and coordination; supervision and coordination of plant procedure preparation, review, and approval; and distribution functions and supervision of personner administration functions at the plant level.
The Senior Specialist - Security develops, implements, and maintains a security program which ensures that the security of the plant is maintained in accordance with NRC requirements. He maintains a close working relationship with local law enforcement agencies to ensure compliance with NRC regulations. He provides input to the Training Uhit so that employees l 13 requiring access to the plant are properly trained and badged. He ensures that equipment and guards are available and in a state of readiness. The l
! Senior Specialist - Security is assisted by Technical Aides and a contract [
security guard force. The Senior Specialist - Security reports to the (
Assistant to the General Manager.
The Senior Specialist - Emergency Preparedness is responsible for the .
continuing refinement of the plant Emergency Preparedness Program which ensures that a " state of readiness" is maintained at the plant to cope with any classification of emergency. He incorporates the provisions of the plant Emergency Plan in the program and revises the program and related procedures as changes are made in the, plant Emergency Plan. He coordinates the training of Technical Support Center participants-and the annual Emergency Drill. The Senior Specialist - Emergency Preparedness reports to the Assistant to the General Manager.
13.1.2.2.3 Plant Operations Unit The Manager - Plant Operations manages the operation, chemistry radiation control, environmental support, and maintenance support of all operating units and those in startup. He has the authority to issue procedures, standing orders, and special orders. He is also responsible for refueling ,
operations. This is accomplished through a staf f which includes the Manager -
l Environmental & Radiation Control, Manager - Maintenance, and Manager -
Operations. The Manager - Plant Operations reports to the General Manager -
Harris Plant Operations Section and assumes all responsibility and authority of the General Manager in his absence 13.1.2-2 Amendment No. 13 l
.5
. . _. - . .~, .. ~ . -.
SHNPP FSAR 13.1.2.2.3.1 Environmental & Radiation Control Subunit
~
i The Manager - Environmental & Radiatioc Control (E&RC) is responsible for the plant radiation safety and control (health physics) programs, the plant chemical control programs, and the environmental programs. These programs are L designed to ensure that environmental and radiation control is maintained in a j manner which will protect the plant, employees, visitors, general public, and the surrounding community. He has the authority to issue special orders. His
, primary responsibility is organizing, planning, and controlling E&RC resources to provide the required support while ensuring compliance with plant Technical Specifications, the ALARA concept, and all applicable state and federal regulations and permit requirements.
4 ,
Some of his major responsibilities include: (1) ensuring that programs and related procedures are developed and administered to meet plant needs and
- regulatcry requirements; (2) maintaining an awareness of current and pending j regulations in the areas of radiation control, chemistry, and environmental matters concerning plant operations; and (3) providing adequate documentation pertaining to individual radiation exposures, radioactive effluents, chemical control of plant systems and environmental surveillance and ensuring that these records are maintained in an up-to-date, retrievable manner. He is aasisted in these functions by an Environmental & Chemistry Supervisor, a Radiation Control Supervisor, a Project Specialist - Environmental and Chemistry, a Project Specialist - Radiation, and a staff of radiation control and environmental and chemistry specialists, foremen, and technicians. The g3
, Manager - Environmental & Radiation Control reports to the Manager - Plant Operations. The Manager - Environmental & Radiation Control does have direct access to the Plant General Manager on any aspect of the radiation protection l
program or its implementation.
The Environmental & Chemistry Supervisor plans, organizes, and directs chemistry control and environmental surveillance programs, maintains laboratory procedures, test results and records, and adheres to the requirements of the operating license and technical specifications. He S. accomplishes these responsibilities through foremen and technicians. The Environmental and' Chemistry Supervisor reports to the Manager - Environmental
& Radiation Control Subunit.
l-
'- The Radiation Control Supervisor is responsible for the plant Radiation Control (Health Physics) Program and for ensuring that all plant activities are conducted in a manner which will protect the plant, employees, visitors, general public, and the surrounding community. His primary responsibility is ~
organizing, planning, and controlling Radiation Control Subunit resources to provide the required support while -ensuring compliance with plant Technical Specifications and all applicable state and federal regulations and permit requirements. He accomplishes this through foremen and radiation control -
technicians. The Radiation Control Supervisor reports to the Manager -
Environmental & Radiation Control Subunit.
! The Project Specialist - Environmental & Chemistry provides technical advice and recommendations for program enhancement to the Manager - E&RC, and ensures
( that the Environmental and Chemistry Programs support efficient, reliable 13.1.2-3 Amendment No. 13
i l
SHNPP FSAR l l
l i
plant operations. He is the Environmental Chemistry technical expert for the Manager - E&RC. He is supported by a staff of specialists and technicians and reports to the Manager - Environmental & Radiation Control Subunit.
The Project Specialist - Radiation Control provides technical advice and recommendations for program enhancement and ALARA program considerations to the Manager - E&RC, and ensures that the Radiation Control Programs support efficient and reliab,la plant operations. He is the Radiation Control technical expert for the Manager - E&RC. Se is supported by a staff of specialists, technicians, and clerks and reports to the Manager -
Environmental and Radiation Control Subunit.
13.1.2.2.3.2 Maintenance Subunit The Maintenance Subunit performs all corrective and preventive muintenance on plant systems and equipment. The Manager - Maintensace is responsible for corrective and preventive maintenance for the equipment of the unit and in the support facilities. This includes' ensuring that the equipment and associated instrumentation and controls, mechanical, and electrical systems in the unit and support facilities are maintained at optimum dependability and operating efficiency. He is responsible for the coordination of these functions and for l
approval of Special Orders, working procedures and standards. He is assisted by the Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor, Electrical Maintenance Supervisor, Project Engineer - Maintenance, Project Specialist - Maintenanca Project g3 Engineer - Computer, and a staff of engineers and specialists, foremen, mechanics, electricians, painters / pipe coverecs, planner / analysts, and technicians. The Manager - Maintenance reports to the Manager - Plant Operations.
The Maintenance Supervisor - Electricel ensures that equipment, instrumentation, controls, and electrical systems are maintained at optimum dependability, safety, and operating efficiency to comply with plant technical specifications, QA, Security, Radiation Control and plant procedures, and regulatory requirements. He accomplishes this by planning, directing, and I
controlling a trained staff, inspecting maintenance work, providing effective maintenance procedures and , standards, and developing improvements in the Preventive and Corrective Maintenance Program. He is assisted in these functions by a staff of foremen, technicians, and electricians. The
< Maintenance Supervisor - Electrical reports to the Manager - Maintenance
, Subunit.
The Maintenance Supervisor - Mechanical ensures that mechanical systems are maintained at optimum dependability, safety, and operating efficiency to comply with plant technical specifications, QA, Security, Radiation Control, and plant procedures and regulatory requirements. He is responsible for all required painting and pipe covering activities necessary to maintain neat, properly insulated plant systems. He accomplishes this by planning,
' directing, and controlling a trained staff, inspecting maintenance work, providing effective maintenance procedures.and standards, and developing improvements in the Preventive and Corrective Maintenance Programs. He is assisted by a staff of foremen, mechanics, and painter / pipe coverers. The Maintenance Supervisor - Mechanical reports to the Manager - Maintenance Subunit.
13.1.2-4 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR The Project Engineer - Maintenance provides technical support to plant electrical and mechanical maintenance and assists the Manager - Maintenance in assuring that plant instrumentation, control, electrical systems and mechanical systems are maintained at optimum dependability, safety, and operating efficiency, and remaining in compliance with all technical specifications and regulatory requirements. He is responsible for
! administration of the Maintenance Management System to accomplish the planning and scheduling of maintenance, ensuring parts availability, and establishing clearances necessary for preplanned work; he is assisted by a staff of engineers, specialists, technicians, and planner / analysts. The Project Ennneer - Maintenance reports to the Manager - Maintenance Subunit.
The Project F.ngineer - Computer provides process computer system maintenance support and technical expertise to ensure that all plant process computer l systems are fully operational for the safe, reliable, and efficient operation of the plant. He is assisted by a staff of specialists and technicians. The Project Engineer - Computer reports to the Manager - Maintenance Subunit.
13.1.2.2.3.3 Operations Subunit The Manager - Operations ensures that the safe and efficient operation of the
' unit and required support facilities. He is responsible for primary and secondary system performance and the timely completion of the scheduled periodic tests, and for adherence to the requirements of the operating license and technical specifications. He is also responsible for coordinating and g3 i
( overseeing the duties of the Operating Supervisor assigned to the plant, the Radwaste Supervisor, and the Principal Engineer - Operations. He is responsible for orderly and safe operations, turnovers, and compliance with operating instructions. He shall hold a Senior Operator's License. lie has the authority to issue Special Orders. He is supported in these responsibilities by a staff of the Operating Supervisor, Radwaste Supervisor, Principal Engineer - Operations, engineers / specialists, Shift Technical '
Advisors, Shift Foremen, and Operators. The Manager - Operations Subunit reports to the Manager - Plant Operations Unit.
The Operating Supervisor supervises plant operations and implementing the l
radiation protection program during normal day shift. He is responsible for idherence to the requirements of the operating license and technical ,
specifications. The Operating Supervisor is responsible for all personnel assigned to the back shif ts, including operators, radwaste operators, j mechanics, electricians, RC technicians, and I&C technicians. The Operating l Supervisor is the designated individual in charge of the plant on back shif ts i unless specifically relieved of this responsibility by either the Manager -
Operations, Manager - Plant Operations, or the General Manager. He shall hold a Senior Operator's License. He accomplishes this through the various foremen and personnel assigned t.o him. The Operating Supervisor reports to the Manager - Operations Subunit.
l The Harris Plant Operations Section will have six Shift Operating Crews assigned. Each shif t will be supervised by a Shif t Foreman (SRO license), and I
/
at a minimum, will be composed of an additional Senior Control Operator (SRO l ( license), two Control Operators (SRO license), and four Auxiliary Operators.
Each Shif t Operating Crew will be charged with the responsibility of operating ,
the unit in a safe and economical manner within the plant's te.chnical i
l 13.1.2-5 Amendment No. 13 l
. _ .~
f SHNPP FSAR specifications, operating procedures, Corporate Nuclear Safety Policy, ;
Corporate Quality Assurance Program, Corporate Health Physics Policy, Corporate ALARA Program, and NRC and other applicable regulatory requirements.
Four of the Shift Operating Crews will work on three rotating shifts to operate the unit; one crew will be used as a relief shift for vacatio' ning and sick operators, and the remaining crew will be in training. Each shift will periodically rotate to the relief or training shift. With the rotating shifts, relief shift, and training shift, there will be ample opportunities for all personnel to' accomplish training and retraining without any requirements for excessive or unusual working hours. An addit'ional seventh Shif t Foreman and three additional Senior Reactor Operators will be available i to supplement any shift as required.
Each Shif t Operating Crew in the Harris Plant Section shall meet the following requirements:
a) When'the unit has fuel in the reactor core, there shall be a Shift Foreman with an SRO license on site at all times.
b) When the unit has fuel in the core, there shall be a licensed operator in the control room at all times.
c) When the reactor is operating, there shall also be a licensed SRO in 13 the control room at all times.
.d) When the reactor is being operated, there shall be an additional licensed operator in the control room to provide relief for the control room operator and to perform duties outside the control room that need to be performed by a licensed operator.
e) When the reactor contains fuel, there shall be an auxiliary operator in 3
addition to the individuals required in (a) through (d) above. An additional auxiliary operator is required for the control room when the reactor is being operated.
f) For all core alterations, there shall be a licensed SRO or SRO limited 1 to Fuel Handling to directly supervise the core alteration. This SRO shall not be assigned any other concurrent operational duties.
g) The Shif t Foreman shall be assigned only the minimal administration
- f duties required to operate his shift.
'hs extensive training program has been established to ensure that each onsite crew collectively has the requisite technical qualifications in reactor physics and control, nuclear fuel, thermal hydraulics, transient analysis, instrumentation and control, mechanical and structural engineering, radiation control and health physics, electric power, chemistry, and plant operation and maintenance. ,
The Shift Foremen ensure the safe, dependable, and efficient operation of the plant during their assigned shift and are the designated individuals in charge of the plant on that shift unless specifically relieved by the Operations -
Supervisor or his superior. They are responsible for adherence to the l
l l
13.1.2-6 Amendment No. 13 I
I
SHNPP FSAR operating procedures, the operating license, and technical specifications. It is the responsibility and authority of the Shif t Foreman to maintain the C broadest perspective of operational conditions affecting the safety of the plant and to keep this as the highest priority at all times when on Control Room duty. The Shift Foreman shall hold a Senior Operator's license. The
. Shift Foreman, until properly relieved, remains in the Control Room at all times during an accident to direct the activities of Control Room Operators.
He may be relieved only by qualified persons holding SRO licenses. During routine operations when the Shift Foreman is temporarily absent from the Control Room, a Senior Control Operator will be designated to assume the Control Room command function. He is supported by and supervises Senior Control Operators, Control. Operators, and Auxiliary Operators. The Shift Foreman reports to the Operating Supervisor.
The Shift Foreman is the designated individual in charge of the plant on back shifts unless specifically relieved of the responsibility by either the Operating Supervisor, Manager - Operations, Manager - Plant Operations, or the Plant Manager. They are responsible for all personnel assigned on the back shifts including operators, mechanics, electricians, RC technicians, and I&C technicians.
I a) Licensed Operators - The licensed control operators are responsible for i performing shift operations in accordance with the procedures, instructions, set points, limitations, and precautions contained in the Plant Operating 13 Manual and the Technical Specifications. Licensed control operators (SR0s) have the responsibility and authority to assume the control room command r
function during the temporary absence of the Shift Foreman. They exercise continuous monitoring of plant conditions and system parameters. They manipulate the controls and equipment to start up, change output, and shut l down the plant as required by operating schedules and load demands. They initiate the inneediate actions necessary to maintain the plant in a safe shutdown condition during abnormal and emergency situations. They maintain required records of plant data, shift events, and performance checks. They
' initiate plant corrective maintenance to report and document equipment problems. The licensed control operators report to the Shift Foreman.
b)- Non-Licensed Operators ' The non-licensed auxiliary operators are responsible to the Shift Foreman for assisting in the performance of assignments associated with shift operations or refueling. The non-licensed operators' duties are normally associated with the operation of auxiliary systems and equipment outside the control room. Non-licensed radwaste operators perform shift operations of the Waste Processing Systems. Non-
- routine operations are performed'under the direction of a licensed control l
operator or Shift Foreman. Radwaste Operators report to the Radwaste Shift Foreman.
c) Radwaste Supervisor - The Radwaste Supervisor supervises the shifts operations of the Waste Processing System. This includes the working
( procedures for the maintenance and implementation of the waste process i equipment, and the operation of the equipment necessary to generate all the i process water utilized within plant' systems. The Supervisor is responsible for ensuring safe and efficient handling and storage of plant-generated 13.1.2-7 Amendment No. 13
< j
SHNPP FSAR contaminated wastes until final disposition. He is assisted by the Radwarte Shif t Foremen, Radweste Operators, Project Specialist - Radweste, Engineers ,
and Radweste Auxiliary Operators. The Radweste Operations Supervisor reports to the Manager - Operations Subunit.
d) Shift Foremen Radweste - The Shift Forenet - Radweste ensure the safe, dependable, and efficient operation of the Waste Processing System. It is the responsibility and authority of the Shif t Foremen Radweste to direct the activities of the Radweste Operators to ensure efficient handling, processing.
storage, and shipment of plant generated contaminated wastes. They are -
supported by and supervise Radunste Control Operators and Radweste Auxiliary operators. The Shif t Foremen-Radweste functionally report tO the Radwaste Supervisor but are under the direction of the Shift Foreman to ensure that radweste operations support is compatible with overall plant operations.
e) Principal Engineer - Operations - The Principal Engineer - Operations provides technical and engineering support to the plant operating personnel.
He is responsible for the implementation and efficient operation of the shif t technical advisor (STA) program at the plant as well as for providing direct technical support in the areas of: (1) Plant Operations; (2) Fire Protection as necessary to support safe, efficient, reliable operations; and (3) reactor core management to meet system load demands and compliance with regulatory requirements. He is assisted by Shift Technical Advisors, a Fire Protection 4
g3 Specialist, and a staff of engineers, technical aides, and technicians. The Principal Engineer - Operations reports to the Manager - Operations.
1 f) Senior Specialist - Fire Protection - The Senior Specialist - Fire .
Protection is responsible for fire detection equipment, fire protection equipment, and general safe working conditions for employees. He is responsible for kaeping current on " Fire Protection Guidelines for nuclear power plants," Regulatory Guide 1.120, and Branch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1 and 9.5-1 Appendix A, and informing plant management of changes affecting the plant. He will evaluate damage to plant fire protection equipment under warranty and make recommendations as to course of action. He will coordinate plant inspections for insurance put pases. He is assisted by a Specialist and Fire Prctection Technical Aides. The Senior Specialist - Fire Protection reports to the Principal Engineer - Operations.
g) Shif t Technical Advisor - The Shif t Technical Advisor provides accident assessment and technical advice concerning plant safety to shif t operations personnel. He performs 10 CFR 21 evaluations for the shif t operations personnel. He accomplishes this by performing engineering evaluations of plant operations, maintaining and broadenidt his knowledge of normal and off- ,
normal operations, and diagnosing off-normal events. The Shift Technical )
Advisors report to the Principal Engineer - Operations.
I 13.1.2.2.4 Startup and Test Unit The Manager - Startup and Test is responsible for successfully implementing and accomplishing, on schedule, the Harris Nuclear Project preoperational and startup test program in accordance with the Startup Manual. The Manager -
Startup and Test Unit reports to the General Manager - Harris Plant Operations $221 Section. *-
l l
13.1.2-8 Amendment No. 13 j l
l
l SHNPP FSAR l 1
The Manager - Startup and Test is responsible'for the following:
a) Supervises the activities of the Startup Organization through the Startup Supervisors.
b) Prepares and updates the startup schedule.
c) Assigns overall test responsibility to the Startup Supervisors.
d) Reviews and approves requests for vendor assistance as recommended by the Startup Organization.
e) Reviews and approves / recommends approval of test procedures, test procedure modifications, and test data in accordance with the Startup Manual instructions.
f) Reviews and recommends approval of startup requests for construction and engineering modifications or changes required during the test program.
g) Issues periodic progress reports and work schedules for the Startup Organization.
13 h) Issues special reports concerning startup activities as he deems necessary.
- 1) Reviews progress of startup activities with contractors, vendors, and Company management.
j) Maintains liaison with the plant management, keeping them f nformed of the test program status, and coordinates with them the activities of plant personnel assigned to startup setivities in conjunction with their training program.
k) Represents the Startup Organization on interdepartmental and interorganizational committees associated with the test program.
- 1) Maintains liaison with contractors and vendors to. coordinate their activities relating to the test program.
m) Is responsible for the preparation and maintenance of the Startup
- Manual, n) Accepts release for tests from Harris Plant Construction Section.
He is supported in the accomplishment of these tasks by a staff of Startup Supervisors, Engineers, specialists, technicians, and clerks. The Manager -
Startup reports to the General Manager - Harris Plant.
L 13.1.2-9 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR The Startup Supervisors are responsible for checking out and starting up on l schedule the systems assigned in their areas in accordance with the Startup Manual and regulatory requirements. Each supervisor is assigned engineers and technicians and reports to the Manager - Startup and Test Unit.
13.1.2.2.5 Regulatory Compliance The Regulatory Compliance Unit provides staff functions to the entire plant
. for regulatory compliance activities and routine reporting of all noncompliance items. The unit is responsible for the continual updating of the FSAR and Technical Specifications, and it serves as the on-site contact for the NRC.
The Director - Regulatory Compliance coordinates activities at the plant to ensure that commitments, responses, records, and reports are prepared, submitted, and maintained in accordance with regulatory requirements. He also maintains a tracking system for the resolution of all plant safety and environmental concerns. He serves as the on-site contact with NRC and provides the expertise necessary to support plant activities in accordance with the operating license and technical specifications. He is assisted by a staff of technicians and specialists. The Director - Regulatory Compliance 13 reports to the General Manager - Harris Plant Operations Section.
13.1.2.2.6 Technical Support Unit r
The Technical Support Unit provides engineering support for the entire plant staff. Their support involves investigations of day-to-day equipment and system operation. Based on their investigations, they recommend modification tasks to keep the plant in compliance with new regulations or to improve efficiency of operation.
The Manager - Technical Support Unit develops and tests maintenance modifications and provides technical support for plant outages, plant operation, and maintenance and manages the plant Inservice Inspection (ISI) and performance programs. He is responsible for preparing, reviewing, approving, and verifying design documents such as design input and criteria, j
dacign drawings, design analysis, computer programs, and specifications. The Manager - Technical Support has the authority to issue procedures, Standing Orders and Special Orders. He is supported by the Engineering Supervisors and a Principal Engineer. The Manager - Technical Support Unit reports to the General Manager - Harris Plant Operations Section.
The Engineering Supervisors and a Principal Engineer are responsible for providing technical direction and coordination for plant engineering studies. They develop and implement the inservice inspection program and plant performance programs as well as procedures, instructions, and guidelines for plant engineering functions. They are supported in these tasks by a staf f of engineers, specialists, engineering technicians, and draf tsmen. The Principal Engineer and the Engineering Supervisors report to the Manager -
Technical Support.
4 13.1.2-10 Amendment No. 13
SENPP FSAR ASSIGNMENT OF ON-SITE SHIFT OPERATIONS The Operating Supervisor is responsible for all operating activities at the plant. The shif t complement consists of one Shif t Foreman (SRO), one Senior Control Operator (SRO), two Control Operators (RO), four Auxiliary Operators,
, and at .least one Radiation Control Technician qualified in radiation protection measures. Each shift will also have personnel fulfilling roles in Fire Protection and Radwaste Control (normally five). It is_ planned that six crews of reactor operations personnel will be assigned. Additional support, for example the I&C Technicians, Mechanics, Chemistry Technicians, and Plant Storekeepers, will be available on a normal two shift basis, but this schedule will be subject to change as plant conditions require. On-call personnel will be'available at all times to support emergencies. Reactor and Performance Engineers will also be available as required, although they will normally work a regulse schedule.
During fuel , movement operations or core alterations there will be one Senior ,
Reactor Operator in Reactor Containment and an operator in the Fuel Handling Building. This Senior Reactor Operator will direct and supervise the operation and will report to the Shift Foreman.
The following chart contains the minimum shift assignments of the Operation Unit:
MINIMUM SHIFT CREW COMPOSITION Operating Mode
( LICENSE CATEGORY SRO 1,2,3,4 2
APPLICABLE OPERATIONAL MODES 5&6 1*
RO 2 1 Non-Licensed 2 1 Shif t crew composition, including a Radiation Control technician qualified in i radiation protection procedures, may be less than the minimum requirements for a period of time not to exceed 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> in order to accommodate unexpected absence of on-duty shift crew members provided immediate action is taken to restore the shif t crew composition to within the minimum requirements. In the unlikely event an unexpected absence occurs that would involve the health physics technician on duty, it is possible this position would be covered by the individual qualified in radiation protection procedures for short periods of time, e.g., a few hours.
L i Operational Modes listed above are defined in the Technical Specifications.
It is expected that the number of personnel as outlined in Table 13.1.2-1 will be used to support the operation of the plant. In the event that additional health physics personnel are required, it is projected that contract health physics services will be used. The number of contract health physics personnel required and their ANSI qualifications will be situationally dependent.
- Does not include the licensed Senior Reactor Operator or Senior Reactor Operator limited to Fuel Randling, supervising core alterations.
13.1.2-11 Amendment No. 13 e- ,,,.x s._yvop .,..e.m4-, ew,99-,.,.,3--.w,.-----ry,w--. ---+ ,y. 7 g.-- w
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.2-1 PROJECTED SHNPP STAFF LOADING TITLE No. OF POSITIONS GENERAL MANAGER 1 ASSISTANT TO GENERAL MANAGER 1 ADNINISTRATION Administrative Supervisor 1 Senior Specialist - Emergency Preparedness 1 Senior Cierk 3 Senior Specialist - Security 1 Technical Aide - Security 2 Secretary 1 OPERATIONS-Manager - Plant Operations I
(
Operating Supervisors 1 Shift Foreman 7 13 Senior Control Operators 15 Control Operators 12 Auxiltary Operators 54 l
l Principle Engineer - Operations 1 Shift Technical Advisor 8
Operations Engineer 1 Technician - Operations I i Senior Specialist - Fire Protection 1 i
Specialist - Fire Protection 1 technical Aide - Fire Protection 6 Radwaste Supervisor I Radwaste Shif t Foreman 5 Radwaste Project Specialist 1 Radwaste Senior Engineer 2
' Radwaste Control Operators 5 Radwaste Auxiliary Operators 15 l MAINTENANCE Manager - Maintenance 1 Maintenance Supervisor (Mechanical) 1 Mechanic Foreman l -( _ Senior Mechanic 3
6 Mechanic 1/C . 15 l
13.1.2-12 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.2-1 (Cont'd)
PROJECTED SHNPP STAFF LO'ADINC TITLE NO. OF POSITIONS MaliffENANCE (Cont'd)
~
Mechanic 2/C 12 Plant Service Foreman 1 Paint & Pipe Coverer Foreman 1 Painter & Pipe Coverer A 3 Painter & Pipe Coverer B 3 Project "FAgineer 1 Maintenance Planner / Analyst 8 Maintenance Engineer 4 Maintenance Specialist 2 Technician - Maintenance 4 Senior Clerk 4 Maintenance Supervisor (Electrical) 1 I&C Foreman 3 i
( Electrical Foreman I&C Technician 1 I&C Technician 2.
1 15 12 13 l Electrician 1/C 9 Project Specialist - Maintenance 1 Electrician Foreman 1 Electrician 1/C 5 I&C Technician 1 5 F.echanic Foreman 1
, Mechanic 1/C 11 Project Engineer - Computer
- 1 Senior Sper.ialist - Computer 2 Technician 1 - Maintenance 2 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Director - Regulatory Compliance '
I Senior Specialist ,, 2 Technician f 2 Clerk I
, ?,
M 7 .
13.1.2-13 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.2-1 (Cont'd) 1 PROJECTED SHNPP STAFF LOADING l
1 TITLE NO. OF POSITIONS STARTUF & TEST Manager - Startup & Test 1 Startup Supervisor 4 Startup Engineer 29 Engineering Technician 1 8 Senior Clerks 4 ERIROINEERAL & EADIATION CONTROL Manager - Environmental & Radiation Control 1 Supervisor - Environmental & Chemistry 1 Environmental & Chemistry Foreman 2 Environmental & Chemistry Technician 1 9
., Environmental & Chemistry Technician 2 4 Project Specialist - Environmental & Chemistry 1
- Senior Specialist - E.wironmental & Chemistry 1 BADIATION CONTROL 13 Supervisor - Radiation Control 1 Project Specialist - Radiation Control 1 Radiation Control Senior Specialist 1 Senior Specialist - ALARA 1 Traveling Radiation Control Foreman 1 Radiation Control Foreman 3 Radiation Control Technician 1 . 14 Radiation Control Technician 2 9 Senior Clerk 1 Traveling Radiation Control Technician I 4 Traveling Radiation Control Technician II 3 TECHNICAL SUPPORT
?
Manager - Technical Support 1 Engineer - Supervisor 2 Principal Engineer 1 Project Engineer 6 Engineer 19 Senior Specialist 9 Co-Op Engineer 3
[ Co-Op Technician 1
, ( Engineering Technician 1 11 l
Senior Draftsman 2 l
13.1.2-14 Amendment No. 13
. . ,O '
' Table 13.1.2-1 (Continuedi Manager - Plant Operations - 1 Operations
, Manager Operations Operating ' Operations Sh i f t Senior Control Control Supervisors . Engineer Foreman Operators Operators y thit 2 1 6 2 12 16 26 Unit 1 1 I 2 6 8 14 l5 Radwaste Radwaste Auxillary Operators &lociale Fngineer Shl f t Technical Technician Roject Senior Operations Advisor Operations Engineer Engineer lhlt 2 24 1 6 2 1 2 ,
Unit i 12 I 6 1 1 2
- H w
P Senior
~
~
g
, Technical Radweste Radweste y Specialist Specialist -
Aldo Radweste Radwaste Control Auxillary h Fire Rotection - Fire &otection Fire Rotection Sup$rvisor Shi f t Foreman Operators Operators 5
. u, g
1 -
Un i t 2 8
1 1 11 1 , 5 10 10 ,
thit i I 1 8 1 5 10 10
,1 . '
e
'I ' ?
D g- .
G 4 rt e
u O
- t
p n R .
g Table 13.1.2-1 (Continuedl Planning & Schedullnq Director i Senior Engineer EngineerInq Technician Technical Alde or Specialist Planning- Planning l5 thit 2 4 2 2 Unit 1 4 2 2 Manager Maintenance 1 Maintenance Supervisor Maintenance Maintenance Mechanic Senior Mechanic Mechanic Plant Service Technician-04echanica l I Engineer Specialist. Foreman Mechanic 14 24 Foreman Maintenance Unit 2 2 3 2 6 12 30 30 2 5 5 U
thit 1 1 2 1 3 6 15 15 1 3 0 s
N k
Maintenance Paint & Pipe Coverer Painter & Pipe Painter & Plpe Technical b
- Planner /Ana lyst Foreman Cbverer A Coverer B Alde N Unit 2 8 2 10 10 2 5 %
unit 1 4 1 5 5 1 U
0" a
n i Z
- v. .
_ _ _._____A
Table 13.1.2 (Continued)
Maintenance Su pervi sor Senior Maintenance I&C Electrical '
(Electrical) 1 Engineer Specialist 18C l8C Electrician Electrician l5 Foreman Foreman Tech. I Tech. 2 t/c 2/C Unit 2 2 3 2 6 2 36 24 Unit i I 12 8 2 1 3 1 18 12 6 4 Technical Project Senior Technician Aldo Maintenance Engineer ProJoct Specialist Technician I Maintenance % Intonance Planner /Ana lyst Eng ineer Comp uter Computer $
Maintenance Unit 2 5 2 8 I I 2 2
, Unit 1 3 1 4 I I 2 2 g
Startup Manager I F cn 7 Startup Startup 5
Y H Supervisor Engineer Engineering Tech. I 3
w m la Unit 2 4 20 8
- Unit 1 4 20 8 a
?,
a
=
P e
l
\
l
+ .
Table 13.1.2-1 (Continued)
Environmental & Radiation Q)ntrol Manager I Environment & Chemistry Supervisor I Environmental & Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Project Specialist .Sen../ Specialist Foreman Tech. 1 Tech. 2 Enviro #unental & Chemistry Environmental & Chemistry 5
Unit 2 3 14 12 1 2 i Unit 1 3 14 12 1 2
. Radiation Control Supervisor I t
Traveling Project Specialist Radiation Control Specialist Radiation Control Radiation Control Radiation Control Radiation Control g Radiation Control Senior Specialist ALARA Foremen Foremen Tech. I Tech. 2 to
." 5
,H Unit 2 1 2 . 1 I 4 22 20 $
y Unit i I 2 I I 4 18 16 65 n w en
- 0) g 9
i &
W e
l Z
, ?
%n i
i 1
g.
Table 13.1.2-1 (Continued)
Manager Technical Support 1 Engi neer Supervisor 1 Project Director Senior Sepcialist Senior Co-op Co-op j5 Engineer Regulatory Compilance Regulatory Compilance Engineer Specialist Engineer Technician Un i t 2 4 1 2 22 4 3 3 th i t 1 4 1 2 22 4 3 3 l5 EngI noeri ng Senior Technician Tech. 1 &aftsman &aftsman Regulatory Compliance Unit 2 10 2 2 2 s lhlt i 10 2 2 2 ta us
~ ,
5 3
i N.
2
\.t rt
) Z i 1
h
1
~
SHNPP FSAR 13.1.3 QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT PERSONNEL
- 13.1.3.1 Minimum Qualifications l Minimum qualifications for plant personnel are listed in CP&L's position on Regulatory Guide 1.8 in Section 1.8.
13.1.3.2 Qualification of Plant Personnel
, Resumes for plant positions presently filled are provided in Tables 13.1.3-1 through 13.1.3-30. '
l 13
- Further informat. ion is contained in the TMI Appendix.
i l
13.1.3-1 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-1 13 C _ James L. Willis
- General Manager - Harris Plant ;
Education and Training A. B. S. Degree in Electrical Engineering - 1955 - U. S. Naval Academy -
Annapolis, MD B. Navy Nuclear Power School - 1958 Professional Societies A. American Nuclear Society
~
B. N. C. Society of Engineers Experience June 1951 - June 1979 - U. S. Navy August 1979 - September 1980 - Project Manager, System Development Corporation Santa Monica, CA
( September 1980 - September 1981 - Manager, Nuclear Training - Southern California Edison Company October 1981 - employed as Manager - Plant Operations in the Nuclear Operations Department, Harris Plant Section. Located in the Ger.eral Office.
April 1982 - employed as General Manager, Harris Plant in the Nuclear Operations Department located at the Harris Plant, New Hill, NC 3 September 1983 - General Manager - Harrie Plant in Harris Nuclear Project Department located at the Harris Plant, New Hill, NC 13.1.3-2 Amendment No. 13
4 l
l SENPP FSAR l
TABLE 13.1.3-2 l 13 Charles Ray Gibson '
Assistant to the General Manager Education & Training A. B. S.-Degree in Chemical Engineering - Uhiversity of South Carolina - 1952 B. M. S. Degree in Management - Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California - 1970 C. Special Training in Marine Corps, including: Basic Officers Training, Basic Engineer Officers Training, Supply Officers Training, and Intermediate Level Staff Officers Training.
Professional Societies A. American Nuclear Society B. Member - International City Managers Association C.
l( . The Retired Of ficer Association Experience June '1947 - September 1947 - Helper Electrician - Underground Distribution Department, Ohio Power Company, Canton, Ohio June 1948 - September 1948 - Operated liquid oxygen plant, Republic Steel Corp., Canton, Ohio June 1952 - July 1974 - U. S. Marine Corps, Washington, D. C. -
Responsibilities included: Managed the facilities maintenance department for ,
major bases; directed military engineer organizations for construction projects. Instructed intermediate staff level officers and civilian top-level supervisors in development and utilization of facilities systems. Devised systems for adapting existing computer programs to improve maintenance control procedures of combat engineering department. Worked with and supervised the use, security, emplacement, and transportation of Marine ground nuclear weapons.
July 1974 - employed as a Senior Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department in the General Office of Carolina Power and Light Company.
[ January 1977 - employed as a Director - Administration & Training in the
( Generation Services Section of the Generation Department in the General Office of Carolina Power and Light Company.
13.1.3-3 Amendment No. 13 7
- , m .
. , - , , - , - %-.- y--<-w . , , ___._ -- - --y---- - - *._,_-,--.,---,-.-y--me-,e m,-%,
1 SHNPP FSAR i
TABLE 13.1.3-2 (Cont'd) l13 Charles Ray Gibson l Assistant to the General Manager Experience (cont'd)
. May 1979 - acting as Superintendent - Technical & Administrative Services at Brunswick Plant, Southport, North Carolina.
December 1979 - employed as Director - Administration in the' Harris Plant Organization in Raleigh, North Carolina.
October 1981 - employed as Assistant to the General Manager of the Harris Plant.
January 1982 performed duties on temporary assignment as Assistant to the
. General Manager of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Southport, N.C.
May 1982 - assumed duties as Assistant to the General Manager of the Harris Plant.
i
. i
,i .
l 13.1.3-4 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-3 Joseph R. Sipp Manager - Environmental & Radiation Control f
Education and Training BS Degree - Chemictry, Geneva College, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania MBA Degree - Western.New England College, Springfield, Massachusetts Experience June 1969 - February 1970 - Research. Chemistry Technician, Mine Safety 13 Appliance Research Corporation, Evans City, Pennsylvania February 1970 - March 1973 - Chemistry & Health Physics Assistant, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Vernon, Vermont:
-March 1973 - April 1979 - Plant Chemist, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, Vernon, Vermont April 1979 - May 1981 - Chemistry Department Supervisor, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Seabrook Station, Seabrook, New Hampshire May 1981 - November 1983 - Manager of Chemical Engineering, General Public Utilities Company, Parsippany, New Jersey November 1983 - Present - Manager - Environmental & Radiation Control, Carolina Power & Light Company, Harris Nuclear Project, New Hill, North Carolina 13.1.3-5 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-4 13 Lloyd R. Hancock C Administrative Supervisor l Education and Training i
A. Associate in Applied Science Degree - Mechanical Technology from Davidson i County Community College - 1971 B. Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from the International Correspondence School (ICS), Scranton, Pennsylvania - 1974 Professional Societies Member of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Experience September 1970 through June 1971 - Draftsman, Croft, Inc.
June 1971 employed as an Engineering Aide I in the Power Plant Engineering Department in the General of fice June 1972 employed as a Technician 11 in the Power Plant Engineering Department in the General Office October 1973 employed as a Technician I in the Power Plant Engineering Department in the General Office June 1974 employed as a Junior Engineer in the Power Plant Enaineering Department located in the General Office and at the Brunswick Plant, Southport, North Carolina
, October 1975 employed as an Engineer in the Power Plant Engineering Department located in the General Office and at the Brunswick Plant, Southport, North Carolina February 1977 employed as an Engineer in the Generation Services Section of the Generation Department in the General Office January 1979 employed as a Senior Engineer in the Generation Services Section of the Generation Department in the General Office May 1979 employed as a Senior Engineer in the Generation Services - O&M Section of the Generation Department in the General office June 1979 employed as a Senior Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Generation Department in the General Office November 1981 employed as an Administrative Supervisor in the Nuclear i Operations Department located at the Harris Plant, New Hill, l North Carolina September 1983 employed as an Administrative Supervisor in the Harris Nuclear g3 Project Department, Harris Plant, New Hill, NC 13.1.3-6 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR ,
i l
TABLE 13.1.3-5 13 Edward M. Steudel j Manager - Technical Support 13 2 Education and Training B. S. Degree in Electrical Engineering - University of South Carolina - 1964 M. B. A. Degree - Golden Gate University - 1977 U. S. Naval Nuclear Power Training - 1965 Professional Societies
~
National Society of Professional Engineers Registered Professional Engineer - Maryland, Ohio, Florida Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers American Nuclear Society Association of Energy Engineers Member IEEE Subcommittee SC-6, Related Systems and Chairman of Working Group 6.5, Safe Shutdown System Civic Organizations Member of National Association of Regional Councils Steering Committee on Natural Resources and Environment Toastmasters Club Commander - U. S. Naval Reserves Experience June 1964 to May 1970 - U. S. Navy - Submarine Officer May 1970 - August 1980 - Engineering Supervisor - Bechtel Power Corporation, 4 Gaithersburg, MD
[
September 1980 employed as a Principal Engineer - Special Projects in the Environmental & Radiatioit Control Section of the Nuclear Operations Department. Located at the Harris Energy & Environmental Center, l
New Hill, NC l
l- September 1981 employed as Manager - Technical Support in the Harris Plant Section of the Nuclear Operations Department. Located at New Hill, NC.
September 1983 employ ~ed as Manager - Technical Support in the R2rris Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, NC L
(
13.1.3-7 Amendment No. 13 i
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-6 l13 Charles Samuel Bohanan Director - Regulatory Compliance Education A. B.S. Degree in Physics - Georgia Institute of Technology - 1966 B. M.S. Degree in Nuclear Engineering - Georgia Institute of Technology -
1967 C. One year of graduate study in Besiness Administration - Un iversity of Pittsburgh D. Separate courses in Reactor Physics, Reactor Design, Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Bettis Reactor Engineering School Professional Societies A. 1975 - Professicnal Engineer
( American Nuclear Society B.
Experience October 1967 to May 1972 - Scientist, Bettic Atomic Power Laboratory June 1972 to July 1975 employed as a Senior Engineer in the Fuel Section of the Power Supply Department located in the General Office.
July 1975 to May 1979 employed as a Senior Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department located in the General Office.
i May 1979 to September 1979 employed as a Project Engineer - Regulatory Compliance in the Generation Services Administration Section of the Generation Department located in the General Office.
September 1979 to January' 1980 employed as a Project Specialist - Regulatory Compliance in the Nuclear Operations Administration Section of the Nuclear Operations Department located in the General Office.
January 1980 to March 1981 employed as a Principal Specialist - Regulatory Compliance in the Nuclear Operations Administration Section of the Nuclear Operations Department located in the General Office.
/ March 1981 to May 1981 employed as a Principal Specialist - Regulatory Compliance in the Licensing & Permits Section of the Technical Services
-( Department located in the General Office.
13.1.3-8 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-6 (Cont'd) l13 ,
Charles Samuel Bohanan Director - Regulatory Compliance Experience (Cont'd)
May 1981 to November 1981 acting as head of the Regulatory Compliance subunit at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant.
November 1981 to July 1982 Employed as a Principal Specialist - Regulatory Compliance in the Licensing & Permits Section of the Technical Services Department located in the General Office.
July 1982 Employed as Director - Regulatory Compliance in the Nuclear Operations Department, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant located in New Hill, North Carolina.
September 1983 Employed as Director - Regulatory Compliance in the Harris Nuclear Project Department, '!aw Hill, NC 13 L
13.1.3-9 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP PSAR TABLE 13.1.3-7 Helm Lipa Environmental & Chemistry Supervisor Education _
A. B. S. Degree in Physics - University of Virginia - Charlottesville, Virginia - 1967 B. 'U. S. Navy Nuclear Power Training - Bainbridge, Maryland C. U. S. Navy Nuclear Propulsion Plant Prototype Training - West Milton, New York D. Course in Environmental Radiation Surveillance for Nuclear Power -
Harvard School of Public Health - Boston, Massachusetts Professional Societies A. Sigma Pi Sigma B. Health Physics Society Experience l
! December 1959 to February 1960 - Retail Clerk - National Shirt Shops, Pleasure Ridge Shopping Center - Pleasure Ridge, Kentucky e
June 1960 to July 1962 - Cashier and Retail Clerk - Carlisle Food Market, 100 N. Hanover St., Carlisle, Pennsylvania May 1962 to August 1962 - Retail Clerk and Cashier - Army - Air Force Exchange - Carlisle, Pennsylvania June 1967 to May 1972 - Officer on Nuclear Powered Attack Submarine -
U. S. Navy, Norfolk, Virginia l
July 1972 employed as a Nuclear Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Balk Power Supply Department in Raleigh, North Carolina i
l June 1973 employed as a Senior Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department in Raleigh, North Carolina May 1976 employed as a Project Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section
! of the Bulk Power Supply Department located at the Shearon Harris Energy & Environmental Center in New Hill, North Carolina January 1977 employed as a Project Engineer in the Generation Services Section of the Generation Department located at the Shearon Harris -
- Energy & Environmental Center in New Hill, North Carolina l
13.1.3-10 Amendment No. 13 L .
l SHNPP FSAR l
TABLE 13.1.3-7 (Cont'd)
Helm Lipa Environmental and Chemistry Supervisor Experience (Cont'd)
September 1978 employed as an Environmental & Radiation Control Imboratory Supervisor in the Generation Services Section of the Generation Department located at the Shearon Harris Energy and Environmental Center in New Hill, North Carolina June 1979 employed as a St.artup & Test Supervisor in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Generation Department in the Harris Startup Organization in Raleigh, North Carolina December 1979 employed as Assistant to the Vice President - Nuclear Operations in the Nuclear Operations Department, Raleigh, NC January 1982 employed as Environmental & Chemistry Supervisor in the Harris Plant Section of the Nuclear Operations Department. Located at New Hill, NC d
L 13.1.3-11 Amendment No. 13
7 SHNPP FSAR l TABLE 13.1.3-8 Clayton Scott Hinnant 13 Manager - Startup & Test Education & Training A. BS Degree in Electrical Engineering - No-th Carolina State University, 1968.
B. Nuclear Orientation and Basic Nuclear Reactor Theory - Newport News Shipbuilding, Atomic Power Division, January, 1969. -
C. Undergraduate courses required for Masters in Business Administration Program - Christopher Newport College, June, 1971.
D. Graduate Work - College of William and Mary, January, 1972.
Professional Societies Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers American Nuclear Society Experience June 1962 - Television Repairman - Kyle Radio and Television, Lucama, NC June 1968 - Engineer - Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock, Electrical Design Section - Newport News, VA October 1972 - employed as an Electrical Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department, Southport, NC May 1974 - employed as a Senior Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department, Southport, NC
-July 1974 - employed as Startup and Test Supervisor in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department, Southport, NC April 1975 - employed as Maintenance Supervisor in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department, Southport, NC May 1976 - employed as Engineering Supervisor I in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department, Southport, NC July 1976 - employed as an Engineer at Babcock and Wilcox, Lynchburgh, VA September 1977 - employed as Project Engineer - Electrical in the Nuclear Construction Section of the Power Plant Construction Department. Located at the Harris Site, New Hill, NC 13.1.3-12 Amendment No. 13
r 1 l
l SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-8 (Cont'd) g C Clayton Scott Hinnant Manager - Startup & Test August 1978 ' employed as Principal Engineer - Electrical in the Nuclear Construction Section of the Power Plant Construction Department. Located at the Harris Site, New Hill, NC August 1979 - employed as Resident Engineer - Electrical in the Harris Site Management Section of the Power Plant Construction Department. Located at the Harris Site, New Hill, NC February 1981 - employed as Superintendent - Startup & Test in the Harris Plant Section of the Nuclear Operations Department.
September 19,82 - employed as Manager - Startup and Test in the Harris Plant Section of the Nuclear Ope.tations Department.
September 1983 - employed as Manager - Startup & Test in the Harris Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, NC 1 L
13.1.3-13 Amendment No. 13
e SHNPP FSAR i TABLE 13.1.3-9 lg3 L. J. Woods l13 Startup & Test Supervisor Education A. B.S. Degree in Mechanical Engineering; University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NB - January 1968
- 8. Nuclear Power Training, U.S. Navy; Vallejo, CA and Idaho Falls, ID -
l August 1969.
Experience February 1962 - June 1982 U.S. Navy October 1963 - Enlisted Nuclear Power School, Bainbridge, MD February 1969 - Of ficer Nuclear Power School, Mare Island, CA August 1969 - Nuclear Power Training Unit, S1W, Idaho Falls, ID November 1969 - Damage Control Assistant aboard a fast attack submarine August 1972 - Assistant Engineer (main propulsion) aboard a fast attack submarine and overhaul coordinator during a refueling overhaul.
April 1975 - Department Head of a Maintenance and Monitoring Unit, attached to a submarine squadron.
November 1980 - Executive Of ficer aboard a Ballistic Missile Submarine.
June 1982 - Employed 'as Project Engineer - Nuclear Staff Support Section in the Nuclear Operations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant located in New Hill, North Carolina 4
February 1983 - Employed as Scartup & Test Supervisor in the Nuclear Operations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant in New 13 Hill, North Carolina September 1983 - Employed as Startup & Test Supervisor in the Harris Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, NC L (_
13.1.3-14 Amendment No. 13
- . - _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ , _ _ . - _ ._ ,., _-_-- _ ._. . . . _ . ~ . __
l SHNPP FSAR i l
l 1
l TABLE 13.1.3-10 l13 Steven L. Mabe Start-Up Supervisor i
Education and Training
. A. B.S. Degree in Mechanical Engineering, North Carolina State University, 1973 Professional Societies A. American Society of Nechanical Engineers - Associate Member B. Registered Professional Engineer - North Carolina Experience Summer months of 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 - Knitter - Russell's Hosiery Mill and a Clayson Knitting Company in Star, N.C. and at Pine Hosiery Mill, Ether, N.C May 1972 to August 1972 - Engineering Trainee - Special projects in Engineering Maintenance, and Design, Weyerhaeuser Plywood, Jacksonville, N.C.
May 1973 - Employed as a Junior Engineer in the Fossil & Hydro Generation 4
Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department. Located in the General Office.
June 1974 - Employed as a Mechanical Engineer in the Fossil & Hydro Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department. Located in the General Office.
September 1975 - Employed as an Engineer II in the Fossil & Hydro Generation ,
Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department. Located in the General Office.
January 1976 - Employed as an Engineer III in the Fossil & Hydro Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department. Located in the Ceneral Office.
January 1977 - Employed as an Engineer III in the Generation Services Section of the Generation Department. Located in the General Office.
December 1977 - Employed as a Senior Engineer in the Generation Services Section of the Generation Department. Located in the General Office.
q, May 1979 - Employed as a Senior Engineer in the Generation Services - O&M Section in the Generation Department. Located in the General Office.
13.1.3-15 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR d
TABLE 13.1.3-10 (Cont'd) t3 Steven L. Mabe Start-Up Supervisor Experience.(Cont'd)
November 1979 - Employed as a Senior Engineer in the Harris Plant Section of the Nuclear Operations Department.
July 1982 "sployed as Start-up Supervisor, Balance of Plant Systems, in the Harris Plant Section of the Nuclear Operations Department.
September 1983 - Employed as Start-Up Supervisor, BOP Systems in the Harris 13 Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, NC i
i l .
1 i .
l 13.1.3-16 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-11 13 C Girard Thomas Law Start-Up Supervisor Education Rose Polytechnical Institute, No degree - Terre Haute, Indiana -
September, 1955 to June 1956 United States Naval Academy - B.S. Engineering / Science - July,,1956 to June, 1960 - Annapolis, MD United States Post Graduate School M.S. Mechanical Engineering - August, 1970 to December, 1972 - Monterey, CA Catholic University - Advance Management courses - September - December, 1979 Experience July, 1960 - September. 1961 - Division Officer aboard USS Franklin D.
Roosevelt - U.S. Navy September, 1961 - January, 1968 - Division Officer and Engineering Officer aboard Nuclear Submarines January, 1968 - July,1970 - Director, Engineering Division, Of ficer's Training Department, U.S. Naval Submarine School.
January,1973 - July,1980 - Engineering Duty Of ficer; various positions in Submarine Construction Conversion, and Repair; Research and Development; and Ship Silencing July, 1980 employed as a Senior Engineer in the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Section of the Nuclear Operations Department. Located in New Hill, North Carolina.
January,1982 promoted to Start-Up Supervisor in the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Secti~on of the Nuclear Operations Department. Located in New Hill, North Carolina.
September 1983 employed as Start-Up Supervisor in the Harris Nuclear Project g3 Department, New Hill, NC L
13.1.3-17 Amendment No. 13
7 I
1 SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-1-2 James Laverne Dority Start-Up & Test Supervisor Education and Training A. High School: Hartsville High School, Hartsville, SC:
Graduated 1961 B. College: Clemson University, Clemson, SC One Year: 1961-1962 -
C. US Navy: Electronics Technician (EIA) School 42 Weeks: 1963-1964 D. Seminar'/Special s Courses:
- 1. Hagan Instruments (3 weeks) - 1969
- 2. BWR Nuclear Instruments (3 weeks) - March 1972
- 3. GE 4010 Computer School (2.5 months) - May-July 1972
- 4. Basic Instrumentation & Installation, Cape Fear Tech.,
(78 hours9.027778e-4 days <br />0.0217 hours <br />1.289683e-4 weeks <br />2.9679e-5 months <br />) - May 1973
- 5. Maintenance & Testing of Electrical Protective 13 Devices, Multiamp Co., January 1979
( 6.
7.
Instructor Training' Workshop (Bill Underwood)
Criterion Referenced Instruction (Bill Underwood)
February 1981
- 8. Criterion Referenced Instruction (Arville Stanley)
February 1982 Professional Societies Instrument Society of America Experience September 1962 - September 1966 - Electronics Technician, US Navy October 1966-March 1967 - Instrumentation Mechanic, Klopman Mills, Inc.,
Socie'.y Hill, SC March 1967 employed as Helper, Carolina Power & Light Company, O&E Dept.,
Production & System Operations Section, Robinson Plant, Hartsville, SC June 1967 employed as Electrician Third Class, CP&L, O&E Dept. Production &
System Operations Section, Robinson Plant, Hartsville, SC May 1968 employed as Electrician Second Class, CP&L, O&E Dept. Production &
System Operations System, Robinson Plant, Hartsville, SC 13.1.3-18 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-12 (Cont'd)
James Laverne Dority Start-Up & Test Supervisor November 1969 employed as I&C Technician Second Class, CP&L, Production Section, Power Supply Group, Robinson Plant, Hartsville, SC April 1970 employed as I&C Technician First Class, CP&L, Power Supply Group, Production Section, Robinson Plant Hartsville, SC June 1972 employed as I&C Technician First Class, CP&L, Bulk Power Supply Dept., Nuclear Generation Section, Brunswick Plant, Southport, NC December 1973 employed as I&C Foreman, CP&L, Generation Department, Nuclear Generat,lon Section, Brunswick Plant, Southport, NC September 1978 employed as Senior Specialist - Technical Training, Nuclear 13 Operations Department, Nuclear Training Section, SHE&EC, New Hill, NC February 1981 employed as Senior Specialist - Technical Training, Technical Services Department, Nuclear Training Section, SHE&EC, New Hill, NC November 1982 employed as a Senior Specialist - Electrical in the Nuclear Operations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant located in New Hill, NC February 1983 employed as Start-up and Test Supervisor in the Nuclear Operations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant located in New Hill, NC i
l September L983 employed as Start-Up & Test Supervisor in the Harris Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, NC 13.1.3-19 Amendment No. 13 1
SHNPP FSAR
( TABLE 13.1.3-13 Robert Brian Van Metre Manager - Maintenance l13 jg3 Education and Training BS Degree in General Engineering - U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland - 1961 <
MS Degree in Personnel Management - George Washington University, Washington, DC - 1967 U. S. Navy Nuclear Power Training Experience ,
1961 - 1981 - U. S. Navy - Extensive experience in the overall i management of a nuclear propulsion plant. Directly involved in all aspects of training, quality assurance, safety, and operations during a twenty-year career as a Naval. officer.
Extensive experience in planning, fiscal and technical manage-ment while in command of a nuclear powered strategic missile submarine and as a senior action officer on the Submarine Force Commander's staff.
October 1981 - Employed as Manager - Maintenance in the Nuclear I
Operations Department, Harris Plant Section, located at New Hill, NC.
September 1983 - Employed as Manager - Maintenance in the Harris Nuclear l3 Project Department, New Hill, NC t
4 i
L.
13.1.3-20 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-14 l13
{ W. H. Batts, Jr.
Maintenance Supervisor - Mechanical Education A. B.S. Degree in Naval Science; United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
- June 1959 B. Afloat Engineer Officer Course, U.S. Navy; Newport, RI - May 1961 C. Nuclear Power Training, U.S. Navy; Vallejo, CA and Idaho Falls, ID -
October 1964 D. M.S. Dejgree in Mechanical Engineering; U.S. Navy Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA - December 1975 Experience June 1955 - July 1980 U.S. Navy July 1955 - February 1961 - Damage Control Assistant aboard Destroyer.
( May 1961 - June 1963 - Engineer Officer aboard Destroyer, including Shipboard Major Modernization.
October 1964 - April 1967 - AlW Prototype, Naval Reactor Facility, Idaho with assignments as Shift Engineering Duty Officer, Electrical Maintenance of ficer, Training Of ficer, and Reactor Control Maintenance Of ficer.
May 1967 - December 1968 - Engineer Officer aboard cruiser, including period of Shipping Overhaul.
April 1976 - October 1977 - Executive Officer aboard Repair Ship.
August 1980 - Employed as Senior Engineer in the SHNPP Section of the Nuclear Operations Department, New Hill, North Carolina October 1981 - Empl^yed as Senior Engineer in the Nuclear Opeations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina May 1982 - Employed as Maintenance Supervisor in the Nuclear Operations 13 Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina September 1983 - Employed as Maintenance Supervisor in the Harris Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, NC L
13.1.3-21 Amendment No. 13
-r - ._, - _ . - - , . , . . , - _ . _ y.. - _ . . . . _ _
p, 7
., y ,
SHNPP FSAR < ,
~
{rL' TABLE 13.1.3-15 [ 13 Terry C. Morton Maintenance Supervisor - Electrical l13
.]
Education & Training "
w, .
A. B. S. Degreerin Electrical Engir.aering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh,^ North Caro 1.ina - 1974 e w
.s Professional Societi6s '
p r * -
A. Institute hf Electrical and Electronic Enginects
<r-
+
Experience '
December 1972 employed as a Co-op Studbut Engineer in the Nuclear Generation J Section of the Bulk Power Supply Departuent in'the General Office ,
June 1973 employed as a Temporary Student Worker in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department in'the General Office
( August 1973 esployed as an Engineering Aide II in the Nuclear Generation Section'41 th'a Bulk Power Supply Department'in the General Office
' it ' ;
July 1974 empibyvf as/a Junior Engineer in the Noclear Generation Section Southport' ofIkheiduik Noir.h Carolina Power Supply Department at the Brunswick plant in G/
i
, , l ,-
January 1976 emphyed as an Engineer in thvNucleat- Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department at tl::,5runswick Plant in Southport, North ~
Carolina "* ~
a ?
August 1978 employed as.a 4pior Engineeriin the Nuclear Generation Section of the Generation Departmette at the Brunswick Plant in Southport., North .
L Carolina '
F' January 1979 employed as a Senior Engineer in'the Generation Services Section -
i of the Generation Department in the Startup & Technical Unit /In the _',y
General Office , , ,6 ; . .,
' " y,,
. /
May 1979 employed as a Senior Engineer in the Nuclear Generatie 5,!ction of ,, ,--
'"9 the Generatior. Department in the '
Harris' Start-up Organization in '
i Raleigh, North Carolina ,
/r, e ,
April 1980 employed as a Start-up Supervisor in the Start-up Subunit of the , :"' .-
Harris Plant Section of the N.aclear Operations Department in
~
Raleigh, North Carolina -
Q 1 s r/
i W.t -
13.1.3-22 Amendment No. 13 m , - ~ , _. ._
,_, , , , - , , , c. . - _ . . , - , - .. -- . -. . - . , , - - - - - - - ,_
SHNPP FSAR-TABLE 13.1.3-15 (Cont'd)
Terry C. Morton Maintenance Supervisor - Electrical October 1981 employed as a Start-Up Supervisor in the Nuclear Operations-Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, 13
. North Carolina February 1983 employed as a Maintenance Supervisor in the Nuclear Operations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina September 1983 employed as a Maintenance Supervisor in the Harris Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, NC i
l l
L 13.1.3-23 Amendment No. 13
k SHNPP FSAR l TA2LE 13.1.3-16 g3 David Waters Principal Engineer - Operations Education A. P.S. Degree in Engineering Physics - Ohio State D niversity - 1963.
B.. M.S. Degree in Nuclear Engineering - Carnegie Institute of Technology -
1967. - '
Professional Societies A. American Nuclear Society B. Professional Engineer - North, Carolina - 1975 C. Society of Fire Protection Engineers
~ Experience
( April,1963, to April,1972, Senior Engineer, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA May, 1972, employed as a Senior Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department. Located in the General Office.
P June,1973, employed as a Project Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the' Bulk Power Supply Department. Located in the General Office.
July. ,1974, employed as a Principal Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of:the Bulk Power Supply Department. Located in the General Office.
January,1977, employed as a Director - Start-up and Technical in the Generation Services Section of the Generation Department. Located in the General Office.
September,1978, employed as a Principal Engineer - Nuclear Generation in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Generation Department. Located in the General Office. ,
May, 1979, employed as a Principal Specialist - Regulatory Compliance in the '
Generation Services Section of the Generation Department. ~ Located in the General Office.
~ November,1979. employed as a Principal Specialist - Special Projects in
(' Nuclear Operations Administration Section of the Nuclear Operations Department. . Located in the General Office.
13.1.3-24 ' Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-16 (Cont'd) l13 David Waters Principal Engineer - Operations Experience (Cont'd)
. February,1981, employed as a Principal Specialist - Special Projects in the Nuclear Operations Administration Section of the Technical Services Department. Located in the General Office.
June 1981 to June 1982 acting as Principal Engineer - Operations at H. B.
Robinson Unit No. 2.
February,1982, employed as Principal Engineer - Operations, at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, located in New Hill, North Carolina.
4 i
< s.
13.1.3-25 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR
- TABLE 13.1.3-17 l13 James P. Thompson III Shift Operating Supervisor l13 Education & Training A. B. S. in Textile Technology - N. C. State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1965 Professional Societies None Experience October 1965 to November 1967 - Assistant Production Engineer - J. P. Stevens Company, Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina Dccember 1967 to September 1972 - Engineer - Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock, Newport News, Virginia Sentember 1972 employed as a Mechanical Engineer in the Nuclear Generation
( Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department at the Brunswick Plant in Southport, North Carolina December 1974 employed as a Senior Engineer in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department at the Brunswick Plant in Southport, North Carolina November 1977 employed as a Project Engineer - Performanen in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Generation Department at the Brunswick Plant in Southport, North Carolina May 1979 employed as a Startup and Test Supervisor in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Generation Department in the Harris Organization in Raleigh, North Carolina February 1982 emplojed as Shif t Operating Supervisor in the Harris Plant Section of the Nuclear Operations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina 13 September 1983 employed as Shift Operating Supervisor in the Carris Nuclear
- Project Department, New Hill, NC L
13.1.3-26 Amandment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-18 Cary S. Briney Shift Foreman Education and Training A. Fullerton Union High School - Fullerton, CA - 1965 B. 'Fullerton Jr. Collegs - Fullerton, CA - 1 1/2 yrs. of Industrial Electricity - 1967 Experience February 1968 - February 1976 - Reactor Operator (E6) - U. S. Navy February 1976 employed as an Auxiliary Operator A in the Nuclear Generation 13 Section of the Bulk Power Supply Department at the Brunswick Plant, Southport, NC June 1977 employed as a Control Operator in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Generation Department at the Brunswick Plant, Southport, NC March 1980 employed as a Senior Control Operator in the Brenswick Plant Section of the Nuclear Operations Department, Southport, NC May 1981 employed as a Shift Foreman - Nuclear in the Brunswick Plant Section of the Nuclear Operations Department, Southport, NC August 1983 employed as a Shif t Foreman - Nuclear in the Nuclear Operations Department at the.Sheeron Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, NC September 1983 employed as a Shift Foreman - Nuclear in the Harris Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, NC L
13.1.3-27 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-19 1 Richard T. Garner Shift Foreman Education and Training A. West Carteret High School, Morehead City, North Carolina - Diploma - 1972 ;
E. Associate Degree in Science (Electronics) - Lenior Community College, Kinston, North Carolina - 1974 J
Experience August 1974 employed as Auxiliary Operator "B" in the Generation Department at the H.'B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina May 1976 employed as Auxiliary Operator "A" -
in the Generation Department at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina 13 July 1977 employed as Control Operator (In Training) in the Generation Department at the H. B. Robinsop Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina September 1977 employed as Control Operator in the Generation Department at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina March 1982 employed as Senior Control Operator in the Nuclear Operations Department at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Harteville, South Carolina r ' November 1982 employed as a Senior Control Operator in the Nuclear Operations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina April 1983 employed as a Shif t Foreman - Nuclear in the Naclear Operations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina.
September 1983 employed as a Shif t Foreman - Nuclear in the Harris Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, NC C
.7 13.1.3-28 Amendment No. 13
^
._ - . . ~ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ __ , . _ - _ _
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-20 C Danny G. Batten Shift Foreman Education and Training A. Bladenboro High School, Bladenboro, North Carolina - 1965 B. U. S. Navy
- 1. Electricians's Mate "A" Schcol - 4 months
- 2. Nuclear Power School - 6 months
- 3. Nuclear Prototype - 6 months Experience April 1967 to January 1970 - U.S.S. Truxtun DLGN-35. Qualified Electrical Operator, Auxiliary Electrician and Reactor Plant Shutdown Watch.
Maintained electrical equipment.
February 1970 to May 1971 - Monob YAG-61. In charge of maintaining electrical system on board this research vessel.
13
( July 1971 employed as Auxiliary Operator "A" in the Generation and System Operations Department at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina November 1972 employed as Control Operator in the Bulk Power Supply Department at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina August 1977 employed as Senior Control Operator in the Generation Department at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina June 1981 employed as Shif t Foreman - Nuclear in the Nuclear Operations Department at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina May 1982 employed as Shif t Foreman - Nuclear in the Nuclear Operations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina. (Temporarily assigned to the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina.)
July 1982 employed as a Shif t Foreman in the Nuclear Operations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina September 1983 employed as a Shif t Foreman in the Harris Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, NC 13.1.3-29 Amendment No. 13
SENPP FSAR i
1 TABLE 13.1.3-21 ;
4 James E. Brooks Shif t Foreman Education and Training A. G.E.D. Eq'uivalency - U. S. Navy - 1966 :
- 5. Engineering Maintenance School - U. S. Navy - 1967 C. . Carolina Power & Light Company
- 1. Reactor Operator License
- 2. Senior Reactor Operator License Experience 1959 to 1969 - Machinist Mate First Class - U. S. Navy February 1969 employed as a Helper at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, 13 South Carolina Au' gust 1969 employed as an Auxiliary Operator "B" at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina January 1970 esployed as an Auxiliary Operator "A" at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina October 1971 employed as a Control Operator at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina May 1976 employed as a Senior Control Operator at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina September .1976 employed as. a Shif t Foreman - Nuclear in the Nuclear Generation Section of the Generation Department at the H. B. Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina November 1982 employed as Shif t Foreman - Nuclear in the Nuclear Operations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, f
September 1983 employed as a Shif t Foreman - Nuclear in the Harris Nuclear Project-Department, New Hill, NC LL i
i 13.1.3-30 Amendment No. 13
. ., . _ - . _ _ . . _ --- - _ _. - _. .~ . - _ . _ _--
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-22 13 Jerry Mac Bradley Radwaste Supervisor Education A. B.S.M.E., North Carolina State University, January 1968 B.- ~ Nuclear Grientation and Basic Reactor Theory, Newport News Shipbuilding, Newport News, VA - January 1969 Professionni Societies A. Registered Professional Engineer, Commonwealth of Virginia -
November 1977.
Experience February 1968 - Employed as an Associate Engineer (Fluid System Design) in the Atomic Power Division of Newport News Shipbuilding.
September 1979 - Proacted to Engineering Supervisce of a Mechanical Design group at Newport News Shipbuilding.
June 1980 - Employed as a Senior Engineer, Harris Plant Start-up Group, Nuclear Operations Department October 1981 - Promoted to Start-up Supervisor in the Nuclear Operations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina 13 September 1982 - Employed as Radwaste Supervisor in the Nuclear Operations Department at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina September 1983 - Employed as Radwaste Supervisor in the Harris Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, NC
. L 13.1.3-31 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-23 Joseph M. Collins Manager - Operations Education and Training B. S. Degree in Business Administration - Coker College Experience -
October 1967 - Control Operator - Operation and Engineering Department, Production and System Operations Section, Roxboro Plant, Roxboro ,
North Carolina January 1969 - Control Operator - Generation and System Operations Department, Nuclear Generation Section, Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina April 1971 - Shift Foreman - Bulk Power Supply Department, Nuclear Generation Section, Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina September 1973 - Nuclear Generation Specialist - Bulk Power Supply Department, Nuclear Generation Section, Robinson Plant, Hartsville, South Carolina 13 C January 1976 - Senior Nuclear Generation Specialist - Bulk Power Supply Department, Nuclear Generation Section, Robinson Planc, Hartsivile, South Carolina January 1977 - Senior Nuclear Generation Specialist - Bulk Power Supply Department, Generation Services Section, General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina August 1977 - Project Specialist - Simulator, Generation Department, Generation Services Section, General Office, Raleigh, North Carolina May 1979 - Project Specialist - Operator Training, Generation Department, ,
Generation Services, Harris E&E Center Section, New Hill, North Carolina December 1979 - Director Nuclear and Simulator Training - Nuclear Operations Department, Nuclear Training Section, Harris E&E Center, New Hill, North Carolina July 1980 to September 1981 - Vice President - Modification Systems, Inc. -
Raleigh, North Carolina September 1981 to April 1983 - Treasurer - Modification Systems Inc. -
Columbia, Maryland April 1983 - Training Supervisor - Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Technical Services Department, Nuclear Training Section, Harris Training Unit, New Hill, North Carolina 13.1.3-32 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-23 (Cont'd)
Joseph M. Collins Manager - Operations g3 November 1983 - Employed as Manager Operations in the Harris Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, North Carolina
?
L 13.1.3-33 Amendment No. 13
]
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-24
, John W. Digby Shift Foreman Education and Training A. Miami Edison Senior High - Miami, Florida - 1960 B. George T. Baker Aviation - Miami, Florids - 1964 to 1966 - No Degree -
Avaiation Mechanics C. Purdue - West Lafayett, Indiana - 1980 to 1983 - No Degree - STA Program D. Electrical Power Production Technical - Sheppard Air Force Base, Watchta Fall, Texas - October 1961 to June 1961 - Electrical Power Production E. Electric Power Production Missile School - Sheppard Air Force, Watchta Fall, Texas - June 1961 to November 1961 - Electrical Power Production 1.
Experience June 1961 to March 1964 - EPPT - United States Air Force
( June 1965 to September 1966 - Truck Driver - Lou-Mack Transfer - Miami, Florida September 1966 to June 1978 - Watch Engineer (SRO) - Florida Power and Light Company - Miami, Florida June 1978 to June 1980 - Reactor Control Operator I - Washington Public Power Supply System - Richland, Washington August 1980 to January 1984 - Shif t Supervisor - Public Service Indiana - New Washington, Indiana February 1984 - Employed as Shift Foreman - Nuclear in the Harris Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, North Carolina L
13.1.3-34 Amendment No. 13
i i
SHNPP FSAR
. 1 TABLE 13.1.3-25 Al Poland Project Specialist Education and Training A. University of Louisville - 1964 - BS Degree in Physics B. University of North Carolina - 1967 - MS Degree in Public Health (Radiological Health)
C. U. S. Navy - Engineering Officer of Watch (E00W) qualification, Navy Nuclear Plant Engineer training program - 1974 to 1975 13 Experience 1967 to 1974 - Westinghouse Electric Corporation - West Mifflin, PA - Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory - Radiological Control. Engineering Department 1975 to 1980 - PSI General Headquarters - Senior Project Engineer - Nuclear Project Group - Environmental June 1980 to September 1982 - PSI Marble Hill Site - Madison, Indiana -
( Nuclear Safety Supervisor and Senior Project Engineer - Nuclear Safety &
Licensing Group - Project Engineering September 1982 to February 1984 - PSI Marble Hill Site - Madison, Indiana -
Health Physics Supervisor - C&HP Department - Nuclear Operations February 1984 - Employed as a Project Specialist - Radiation Control in the Harris Nuclear Project Department, New Hill, North Carolina 13.1.3-35 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-26 ;
C James W. McDuffee I Radiation Control Supervisor I
Education and Training A. West Phoenix High School - Phoenix, Arizona B. Phoenix College - Phoenix, Arizona - (1960-1961: .No Degree)
C. U. S. Navy Nuclear Power Plant Operator's Course - Fort Belvoir, Vit:; inia (Certified Operator)
Experience ,
1955 to 1959 - Hospital Corpsman - U. S. Navy 1961 to 1966 - Medical Department Representative - U. S. Navy 1966 to 1968 - Health Physics and Process Control Technician - U. S. Navy 1968 to 1971 - Supervisory Health Physicist Technician - U. S. Navy
( 1971 to 1974 - Division Chief Petty Officer / Radiation Health Technician -
U. S. Navy l
1974 to 1978 - Assistant Personnel Officer - U. S. Navy May 1978 to January 1983 - Radiation Protection Supervisor - Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station - Wintersburg, Arizona January 1983 - Employed as a Project Specialist - Health Physics in the Radiological & Chemical Support Section of the Technical Services Department, New Hill, North Carolina August 1983 - Employed as a Project Specialist - Health Physics in the Radiological & Chemical Support Section of the Operations Training &
Technical Services Department, New Hill, North Carolina November 1983 - Employed as a Principal Health Physics Specialist in the l Radiological & Chemical Support Section of the Operations Training &
Technical Services Department, New Hill, North Carolina March 1983 - Employed as a Radiation Control Supervisor in the Harris Nuclear l Project Department, New Hill, North Carolina lL '
13.1.3-36 Amendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-27 L. P. Capps Supervisor - Project Material Control Education Pembroke State University - Pembroke, North Carolina - 1973 B. S. in Accounting Experience 1973 - Junior Accountant; Plant Accounting Section, Treasury and Accounting Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina 1975 - Accountant, Plant Accounting Section, Treasury and Accounting 13 Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina 1975 - Accountant, Construction Engineering and Accounting Section, Power Plant Construction Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Raleigh, North Carolina 1976 - Senior Accountant, Nuclear Construction Section, Power Plant Construction Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina 1978 - Supervisor - Project Accounting, Harris Site Management Section, Nuclear Plant Construction Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina 1984 - Supervisor - Project Material Control, Administrative Section, Harris Nuclear Project Department, Carolina Power & Light Company, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, New Hill, North Carolina.
Professional Societies None L
13.1.3-37 Amendment No. 13
SilNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-28 E. E. Johnson Supervisor - Project Document Services Education North Carolina State University - Raleigh, North Carolina - 1964 - B. S. in Applied Mathematics Exnerience 1964 - Engineer in Atomic Power Division, Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company 1971 - Engineering Supervisor in Atomic Power Division, Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company.
1973 - Structural Design Specialist, Gilbert Associates, Inc.
1975 - Project Control Engineer - Gilbert Associates, Inc.
1977 - Records Management Consultant of VEPCO's North Anna Nuclear Power Plant for Gilbert Associates, Inc.
t3 1979 - Supervisor, Administration and Records Management, at VEPCO's North Anna Nuclear Power Plant 1981 - Information Management Consultant at SCE&G's V. C. Summer Nuclear Power Plant for Gilbert Associates, Inc.
1983 - Project Specialist - Nuclear Operations Administration, Carolina Power
& Light Company 1984 - Supervisor - Project Document Services at Harris Nuclear Project Department, Carolina Power & Light Company Professional Societies A. Member of Institute of Certified Records Managers I
B. Member of Association of Information and Image Management (formerly National Micrographics Association)
C. Member of Association of Records Managers and Administrators D. Member of Nuclear Records Management and Administrators (1) Member on Micrographics Committee
- (2) Member on Technical Support Center / Emergency Of f aite Facility l Records Committee I' 13.1.3-38 Amendment No. 13
i i
SHNPP FSAR l
~
TABLE 13.1.3-29 Ronald E. Gurganus Supervisor - Project Analysis, Harris Nuclear Project Department Education A. North Carolina State University - Raleigh, North Carolina - 1970 B. S. in Forest Management.
B. Dake University - Durham, North Carolina - 1980 - MBA in Business Administration C. International Correspondence School - Scranton, Pennsylvania - 1982 Diploma in Electrical Engineering, Power Option D. 3286th United States Army Reserve School - Raleigh, North Carolina - 1982
- First Sergeant School - Diploma 13 Experience 1970 - Assistant to Vice President of General Construction, Stackhouse, Inc.
1973 - Transmission Line Right-Of-Way Forester, CP&L System Operations Department 1978 - Senior Specialist, CP&L System Operations Department 1983 - Senior Engineer - Project Analysis, CP&L Harris Site Management 1984 - Supervisor - Project Analysis, Harris Project Administration, CP&L, Harris Nuclear Project Department Professional Societies None
(
1 i
?
l l
l 13.1.3-39 knendment No. 13
SHNPP FSAR TABLE 13.1.3-30 R. E. Butler Director - Site Industrial Engineering Education A. Maryland University - College Park, Maryland - 1959 B. S. in Chemical Engineering / Math -
B. Maryland University - College Park, Maryland - 1967 B. S. in Industrial Engineering Experience 13 1964 - Distribution Supervisor - UPS - Landover, Maryland 1966 - Personnel Supervisor - UPS - Landover, Maryland 1967 - I.E. Manager - UPS - New Jersey District 1974 - Industrial Engineering Manager Assigned to UPS National Staff -
( 1976 - District Operations /I.E. Manager Carolina District - UPS - Raleigh, North Carolina 1980 - Industrial Engineering Supervisor - Harris Site Construction 1983 - Director Site Industrial Engineering, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant Professional Societies Member American Institute of Industrial Engineers i
13.1.3-40 Amendment No. 13
SENPP PSAR 13.4.1 ON-SITE REVIEW 4 SHNPP shall adopt measures to assure that plant management conducts reviews of:
a) Unplanned events that have operational safety significance, b) Modifications to existing systems, structures, and components which are important to nuclear safety.
c) Procedures as requird by Appendix A, Regulatory Guid 1.33-1978 (Rev. 2) and changes thereto. 4 The review activities of the on-site operating organizations shall be in accordance with Section 4.4 of ANSI N18.7-1976 as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.33-1978 (Rev. 2), paragraph C.5.a.
l4 The administrative program for review, approval, and control of procedures shall be in accordance with Section 5.2.15 of ANSI N18.7-197ti.
I 13.4.1-1 Amendment No. 4
SHNFF FSAR 13.4.2 INDEPENDENT REVIEW An off-site independent review program that conforms to the criteria of ANSI N18.7-1976 has been established. The objective of the program is to provide corporate management with an independent review and assessment of those aspects of plant operations which affect nuclear safety. The Corporate Nuclear Safety (CNS) Unit of the Corporate Nuclear Safety & Research Department is responsible for this function.
{ 13 The CNS Unit is comprised of experienced personnel who, in general, have the collective expertise and technical competence to review problems in the following areas:
Nuclear Power Plant Operations Nuclear Engineering Chemistry and Radiochemistry Metallurgy Instrumentation and Control Radiological Safety Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Administrative Control Seismic and Environmental Quality Assurance Practices Looking more at the details of the review function, the following specific.
items are evaluated:
)
/
Plant procedure changes meeting 10CFR50.59 review criteria, Plant design changes meeting 10CFR50.59 review criteria, Licensing actions, l Test or experiments not described in the facility FSAR,
! Plant operational occurrences (LERs),
Regulatory violations, Technical Specification changes, Nuclear Safety Review Committee meeting minutes,.
Conformance to regulatory requirements, and Any item deemed appropriate for review relative to safe operation.
Should an ites arise where sufficient expertise is not available within CNS, ,
the organization has the flexibility and authority to call on appropriate l personnel to supplement the independent review ensuring satisfactory
- resolution of the item. The CNS organizational structure is shown in Figure 13.4.2-1.
l 1
j Written records of independent reviews sre prepared and retained as are periodic reports to corporate management that address safety-related issues. This independent off-site review orogram is currently in effect for Carolina Power & Light Company's operating nuclear units and will
, be implemented for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant prior to receipt of the Operating License. l 13 ,
l L]F y
13.4.2-1 Amendment No. 13
6 \
13.4.3 AUDIT PROGRAM The purpose of corporate operational audits is to ensure an effective means of reviewing and evaluating the plant preoperational, start-up and test, and operational periods. The implementation and effectiveness of the Continuing QA Program shall be regularly assessed for compliance with 10CFR50, Appendix B, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.33, ANSI N18.7, and N45.2.
The corporate organization responsible for independent audit is the Performance. Evaluation Un it in the Corporate Quality Assurance Department.
The objective of the unit.is to continuously assess all functions involved in the design, construction, and operation of the Company's nuclear plants to assure all levels of management that commitments to Regulatory Guides and applicable technical codes are being carried out and regulatory requirements are being met. The function is described in ANSI 18.7 as a comprehensive system of planned and d(:umented audits to verify compliance of all aspects of the administrative controls and quality assurance programs.
Carolina Power & Light Company's principal means of achieving an effective, safe nuclear plant are the Company's Corporate Quality Assurance Program (CQAP) and the ASME QA Program. The CQAP addresses engineering, design, construction, construction testing, startup, operation, and maintenance for the plant life. It covers procurement, design, and operation associated with the fabrication and control of nuclear fuel. The ASME QA Program addresses compliance with the requirements and rules of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code during engineering and construction of the SHNPP. The
] role of the Performance Evaluation Unit in these programs is to assure that prucedures are developed to implement each program and that these procedures J
are being followed.
The Performance Evaluation Unit is responsible for auditing the initial phase in the inception of a nuclear plant, design and construction. This is accomplished by auditing the Harris Plant Engineering Section, the Harris Plant Construction Section, the Nuclear Engineering & Licensing Department, 13 the Harris Plant Quality Assurance / Quality Control Section, and those sections of the Operations Training & Technical Services Department performing nuclear-related activities during the engineering and construction phase. Each of l these activities is audited at least once a year to assure that they meet the Corporate Quality Assurance Program and other criteria specified in the j FSAR. Additional audits may be requested by line or corporate management if special problems are encountered.
l The Performance Evaluation Unit is also charged with auditing the operational l phase of the nuclear plant. The following criteria are addressed in
! developing'the audit requirements:
l Plant Operating Manual and Procedures.
l
! Plant Technical Specifications including the following minimum requirements.
The conformance of facility operation to all provisions contained
/
) within the Technical Specifications and applicable license conditions at least once per 12 months.
13.4.3-1 Amendment No. 13
The training and qualifications of the entire facility staff at least once per 12 months.
-The results of actions taken to correct deficiencies occurring in facility equipment, structures, systems, or method of operations that affect nuclear safety at least once per 6 months.
-The verification of compliance and implementation of the requirements of the quality assurance program to meet the criteria of Appendix "B",
100FR50, at least once per 24 months.
The Emergency Plan and implementing procadures at least once per 12 months.
The Security Plan and implementing procedures at least once per 12 months.
The freility Fire Protection Program and implementing procedures at least once per 12 modths.
Any other area of facility operation considered appropriate by responsible management.
Commitments made in the plant FSAR.
SHNPP will be audited two to three times yearly when operational. Nuclear fuel activities are audited annually. (Fuel suppliers are also subjected to audits.) Additional audits any be requested by line or corporate management
_]
/
if special problems are encountered.
4 The organizational structure for the Performance Evaluation Unit is shown in Figure 13.4.3-1. When necessary to augment an audit team, outside consultants or qualified Company personnel independent of the operation being audited may '
be utilized.
The areas audited and the minimum frequency of the audits are listed below:
Operating Nuclear Plants - A minimum of two times per year.
Nuclear Fuel Department - Once per year.
Nuclear Fuel Supplier - Once during applicable time period covered by purchase order or onco every three years, whichever is shorter.
4 Harris Energy & Environmental Center - Once per year.
SHNPP Environmental Programs - Once per year.
4 Q-List Modifications Performed by Plant Staff - Once per year.
Radwaste Transfer, Packaging, and Transport Activities - Once per year.
Pre-Operational Audits - Selected by Principsi QA Specialist. ,
13.4.3-2 Amendment Nc. 4
w -
.SitNFF FSAR Harris Plant Construction - Once per year.
13 l Harris Plant Engineering - Once per year, j Site Investigation - Selected by Principal QA Specialist.
Harris Plant Quality Assurance / Quality Control - Once per year. l13 QA Services - Once per year.
Operating Plant Q - List Modification - Once during modification (only applicable to changes requiring company interface documents).
ASME Code Construction - At least twice per year.
Other than audit reports the Performance Evaluation Unit communicates to Senior Management by a monthly report of QA audits conducted during the month
, including a status of the action items and their resolution. The Manager -
Corporate Quality Assurance reports to the Executive Vice President - Power Supply and Engineering & Construction which provides direct communication.
Discussions involve an overview of the Company's various organizational units' efforts in maintaining an effective QA program. In addition to these meetings, the Manager - Corporate Quality Assurance Department meets on a regular basis with Department personnel to review activities. In addition to the formal audit activities, the Performance Evaluation Unit is often called
} .on by other Company members for interpretations of codes, standards, or other J QA requirements. This contact is in an advisory role identifying acceptable modes of operation and does not compromise the unit's independence from line activities.
l l
13.4.3-3 Amendment No. 13
. - - - _ _ . .- .. - . , _ - - . - - _ _ . .. ., )
a PRESIDENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ,,
& CHAIRMAN l
l I
1 I
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT I POWER SUPPLY & ENQ1NEERING ..q
& CONSTRUCTION GROUPS l 1
l l
1 VICE PRESIDENT !
CORPORATE NUCLEAR SAFETY ,,j
& RESEARCH DEPARTMENT 1
I I MANAGER MANAGER MANAGER CORPORATE SAFETY CORPORATE HEALTH f RESEARCH SECTION SECTION PHYSICS SECTION SPECIALIST CORPORATE ~
NUCLEAR SAFETY l
l l l 1 I l DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR NUCLEAR SAFETY ON-SITE NUCLEAR ON-SITE NUCLEAR ON-8ITE NUCLEAR REVIEW SAFETY (BSEP) SAFETY (H8R) SAFETY (SHNPP)
' Amendment No. 13 SHEARON HARRIS FIGURE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Carolina INDEPENDENT SAFETY REVIEW GROUPS Power & Light Company FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 13.4.2-1 1
PRESIDENT & CHIEF
~ ~ '
EXECUTIVE OFFICER 1
i I 1 EXECUTIVE VICE , PRESIDENT POWER SUPPLY & ENGINEERING - - * '
& CONSTRUCTION l
l 1 ,
I MANAGEH I CORPORATE --4 QUALITY ASSURANCE I I
I l MANAGER QUALITY ASSURANCE --
SERVICES SECTION l
PRINCIPAL QUALITY ASSURANCE SPECIALIST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ,
I 1 I PROJECT QA SPECIALIST PROJECT QA SPECIALIST INTERNAL AUDITS EXTERNAL AUDITS l
l SENIOR QA ,
SENIOR QA SPECI A LISTS SPECIALISTS LEGEND
-Line of Responsibility & Accountability
- --Line of Communication Amendment No. 13 I . - - .-. . . . . ~ ..-. . . . . ...
SHEARON HARRIS FIGURE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CORPORATE QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT UNIT i
Carolina 13.4.3-1 Power & Light Company FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l
. . .. _ _ . . . __ .- ~ _ - ___ . _ _
1 13.5 PLANT PROCEDURES
- 13.5.1 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES i The SHNPP General Manager has overall responsibility for the development and implementation of the administrative and operating procedures necessary to
~
ensure sefe operation of the plant within the limits set by the facility license and Technical Specifications. These procedures assign responsibilities and delegate authorities to the SHNPP staff. These procedures provide control measures for the preparation, review, approval, revision, and use of all procedures which govern quality - and safety-related plant activities.
. 13.5.1.1 Conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.33 Section 1.8 describes CP&L's position on conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.33. __
13.5.1.2 Preparation of Procedures 4
All safety-related plant activities will be conducted in accordance with detailed written and approved procedures.
Plant administrative procedures, which govern the safety-related activities of the plant staff, and the plant operating, maintenance, technical, and
] surveillance procedures are prepared by experienced and technically qualified f personnel within the approprinte functional units of the plant organization. l3 Procedures are reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.0 of the i Technical Specifications and recommendations made to the functional unit manager or unit director under .whose authority they were prepared. The procedures are
, issued . following approval by the functional unit manager or unit director, or by the plant general manager in the case of procedures affecting activities in more than one functional unit.
. 13.5.1.3 Procedures a) Standing Order to Operations: The responsibilities and authoritier of
, plant personnel' are delineated through standing orders to shif t foremen and shift crews. In addition, corporate management ' periodically issues , _
l- directives that emphasize the primary management responsibility of the Shif t Foreman is to ensure safe operation of the plant on his shif t and that clearly l.
j establishes his command duties.
t-
- 1) Authority and Responsibility of Reactor Operator: The reactor operator has the responsibility and authority for manipulating ' controls l
- which directly or indirectly affect core reactivity and/or the.
L manipulation of apparatus aad mechanisms other than controls which may
- affect the reactivity or power level of a reactor, including tripping l
- Further information is contained in the TMI appendix.
I 13.5.1-1 _
4 . m-.- --- ~ .-yu.. - _ - , ,.r, y % .. c. . , - ,--,,,--y, -
,-,w,.%m.,,,m re+ , , , .gr.,- ..-_-o s
SHNPP FSAR the reactor should he does it to be necessary. He is responsible for ]
knowing the limitt and setpoints associated. with safety related /
equipment and systems contained in the Technical Specifications and in the operating procedures. The reactor operator may be designated to assume the control room command function if the Shift Foreman is temporarily absent from the Control Room during routine operations.
- 2) Authority and Keeponsibility of Senior Reactor Operator: The Shif t Foreman, who is a licensed senior reactor operator, has, in addition to the authority and responsibility assigned to the reactor operator,_ the overall responsibility for licensed activities on the Unit (s) under his command. His fundamental and primary responsibility on shif t is to maintain at all times a broad perspective on operational conditions affecting plant safety. The Shift Foreman shall remain in the Control Room at all times during emergency situations to direct the activities of control operators. Pursuant _ to 10CFR50.54(m) . .the Shif t Foreman shall be _ present at the facility during initial startup and approach to power, recovery from an unplanned or unscheduled shutdown or significant reduction in power, refueling, or as otherwise prescribed in the facility license.
The Shift Foreman shall not engage in administrative functions that detract from his overall responsibility for assuring safe operation of the Unit (s) under his command. There may be additional operating personnel on shif t holding senior reactor operator licenses; however, only the Shif t Foreman is delineated the authority of the senior reactor operator, pursuant to 10CFR50.54(1). ,
- 3) Manipulation of Controls: Administrative control procedures state that no one is permitted to manipulate facility controls which affect reactivity if he is not a licensed reactor operator or senior reactor
~
operator, except for , license trainees operating under the direction of
- a licensed operator or senior operator, pursuant to 10CFR50.54(1).
- 4) Operations Affecting Reactivity: Administrative control procedures require that all personnel operating plant apparatus and mechanisms other than controls, which may affect the reactivity or power level of the Unit, notify and obtain permission of the control room operator prior to initiating such action, pursuant to 10CFR50.54(j).
, 5) Presence of Licensed Operator at Controls: A licensed reactor l operator or senior reactor operator is required by administrative procedure to be present "at the controls" at all times during the operation of the Unit, pursuant to 10CFR50.54(k). Figure 13.5.1-1 indicates the area of the Control Room which is designated "at the controls."
- 6) Shift and Relief Turnover: Administrative control procedures provide a formal means of assuring that the oncoming operating shift has the necessary knowledge of critical plant status information and system availability. The procedures includes checklists to be completed and signed by the of fgoing shif t personnel and reviewed and (
13.5.1-2 L
I, .
SHNPP FSAR signed by the oncoming shif t personnel. In addition, provision is made for periodic review to evaluate the effectiveness of turnover between the oncoming and offgoing shifts.
- 7) Control Room Access: Administrative control procedures establish the authority and responsibility of the shif t foreman for limiting access to the Control Room. In general, access is limited to those individuals responsible for the direct operation of the Unit, to technical advisors required or requested to support operations, and to other predesignated personnel.
, b) Special Orders of a Transient Nature: From time to time,- management issues special orders to the plant staff to conduct (or not to conduct) i certain activities which require no changes or additions to existing procedures and/or instructions. These special orders are of a temporary or transient nature such that their execution constitutes cancellation.
Typically, these special orders appear in the form of Night Orders from the ,
Manager-Operations to the shift Operating Supervisors.
c) Equipment Control Procedures: An equipment clearance procedure is used to establish the administrative controls to be utilized to prevent unauthorized operation of plant equipment and to provide safe working conditions to personnel. The Shift Foreman authorizes the release of equipment or systems for maintenance, after determining that it may be taken out of service, how long it may remain out of service, to what degree redundant safety systems may be degraded by removing the equipment from
)/ service, and the adequacy of the proposed isolation. Red CLEARANCE tags are installed on all equipment associated with the clearance to indicate the item is not to be operated in any manner. When equipment is unsatisfactory for service, and no clearance has been issued on the equipment, the equipment is tagged with a DANGER t'ag to prevent operation.
d) Control of Maintenance and Modifications The requirements for p controlling plant maintenance and modifications are set forta in CP&L's 4 Corporate Quality Assurance Manual.
- 1) . Maintenance: Procedures and instructions are applied to control maintenance of safety related items. Maintenance procedures and l instructions include the following information, as appropriate:
l~
(a) Requirements for indoctrination, training, and skills.
l (b) Prerequisites for special environments, equipment, tools, and material preparation.
(c) Provisions for data collection and. reporting.
, (d) Instructions for documentation of work performed.
- (e) Requirements for verification of functional capability and quality by inspection, witnessing, examination, and testing, including specifications of mandatory holdpoints and verification procedures or instructions.
13.5.1-3 Amendment No. 4
SHNPP FSAR (f) Quantitative and qualitative criteria for determining important steps or functions have been satisfactorily
)
accomplished.
All procedures utilized for maintenance of safety-related structures, systems, or components are reviewed as provided for in Section 6 of the Technical Specifications. This review ensures that the equipment is returned to a state of quality at least equivalent to that specified
, originally.
The detailed administrative control of plant maintenance is provided for under the CP&L Maintenance Management System. This system provides an accurate written record of all maintenance work performed, both corrective and preventative. This assures all maintenance and repair work needed is given proper and timely consideration; all such maintenance and repair work is clearly described so that proper investigation of the causes and corrective action may be made; the work priority established is based on urgency; and proper OA/0C considerations are given to all work.
- 2) Modifications: Plant modifications and setpoint changes are developed in accordance with approved procedures. These procedures assure all necessary activities associated with the modifications are carried out in a planned, controlled, and orderly manner. For each modification, design documents such as drawings, equipment and material T
specifications, and appropriate design analysis are developed or the as-built design documents are utilized. Based on the information in j the design documents, a written safety evaluation is prepared in accordance with 10CFR50.59. This analysis contains the technical data, supporting evaluations, and the safety questions considered and analyzed as safe that form the bases for determining the modification does or does not involve an unreviewed safety question. Separate technical and QA reviews are conducted to verify the adequacy of the design effort. The final modification package is reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.0 of the Technical Specifica,tions. The purpose of this review is to a assess the potential degradation of plant quality as a result of the proposed modification.
In particular, the safety analysis, conclusions, and any proposed
-procedure changes p.re checked and it is determined if the modification involves an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10CFR50.59.
Proposed modifications which involve an unreviewed safety question or a change to Technical Specifications are handled in the form of proposed license amendments.
e) Master Surveillance and Testing Schedulet The CP&L Maintenance Management System provides the administrative control measures needed to ensure that the periodic testing (PT) of plant safety-related structures, systems, and components is conducted in accordance with the plant Technical Specifications. The Maintenarce Management System establishes a data base for each item subject to periodic testing, itemizing all PT tasks to be performed ,
on each ites, including frequencyg type, and the responsible plant supervisor. -
13.5.1-4
l 1
SENPP FSAR l l
1 All PT's are initiated by work orders and controlled by the work order number.
f) Procedures for Log Book Usage and Control: Administrative procedures prescribe the usage, control, number of log books, their location, and the personnel responsible for maintaining them. Log books contain a narrative record of plant events in chronological order. Log entries include, but are not limited to, the following:
Date Plant status Changes in generator output Changes in reactor power level Starting and stopping of major equipment Change of auxiliary system configuration Changes in reactor control and rod group positions Performance of periodic tests Reactor trips Instrument or equipment malfunctions or failures Unusual trends or conditions observed Major in-plant electrical switching Starting and stopping gaseous or liquid waste disposal discharges Setpoint changes Company electrical grid events that affect operations Relay operations and t":gets Electrical switching involving switchboard and main transformera g) Temporar? Procedures: Temporary administrative procedures may be issued for the performance of activities which are of an infrequent or nonrecurring nature. Such activities may include:
- 1) Direction of operations during testing, refueling, maintenance, and modifications.
13.5.1-5
- SHNPP FSAR
- 2) Guidance in unusual situations not within the scope of the normal procedures.
- 3) Ensuring orderly and uniform operations for short periods when the plent, a system, or equipment is performing in a manner not covered by existing procedures.
Limitations on the usage of temporary procedures is stated in the procedures.
Temporary procedures affecting plant safety are reviewed and approved as described in Section 13.5.1.2.
i I
l 1
l l
I b
13.5.1-6 i
SHNPP FSAR I 13.5.2 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES 5 13.5.2.1 Control Room Operating Procedures System operating activities performed by licensed operators in the Control Room are conducted in accordance with approved, written procedures. These procedures provide detailed, preplanned instructions for performing operations in order to eliminate errors resulting from inconsistant or arbitrary manipulation of systems and components. Procedures are sufficiently detailed so that qualified operators can perform the required functions without direct supervision.
a) System Operating Procedures - System operating procedures provide instructions for starting, securing, and placing systems in various modes for operation. Each procedure contains a title page, a list of cffective pages, a table of contents containing a list of subprocedure titles, and a complete list of precautions that apply to the system. Each subprocedure contains a description of its purpose, a list of initial conditions which must be met before commencing with the basic procedure, a section containing the detailed step-by-step instructions, a valve and electrical lineup, and if required, a checklist. The following is an initial listing of operating procedures:
- 1) Auxiliary Feedwater System
- 2) -Auxiliary Steam System
- 3) Boron Recycle System
- 4) Boron Thermal Regeneration System 5)- Chemical and Volume Control' System
- 6) Circulating Water System-7). Component Cooling Water System
- 8) Condensate and Feed Water System 9)~ Main Condensor System 5-
. 10) Containment Ventilation and Vacuum Relief System 11)- Containment Spray System
- 12) Control Room Area Ventilation System
- 13) Cooling Tower System-
- 14) Emergency ' Diesel Generator System
- 15) Plant Electrical Distribution System' 5
'16) Essential Services Chilled Water System
- 17) Fire Protection / Detection System 13.5.2-1 Amendment No. 5
SIDIPP FSAR
{
/
- 18) Generator, Exciter, and Isolated Phase Bus System
- 19) Generator Gas, Generator and Exciter Mechanical Support System
- 20) Gross Failed Fuel Detection System
- 21) Reector Coolant System
- 22) Primary Sampling System 5
- 23) Primary Makeup System
- 24) Reactor Control and Protection System
- 25) Rod Control System _ ..
- 26) Ex-Core Instrumentation System
- 27) In-Core Instrumentation System
- 28) Safety Injection System
- 29) Residual Heat Removal System
- 30) Containment Structure System i 5 31) Containment Isolation System
- 32) Fuel Handling System
- 33) Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System
- 34) Radiation Monitoring System
- 35) Metal Impact Monitoring System
- 36) Waste Processing System
- 37) oily Waste Collection and Separation System
- 38) Post Accident Hydrogen System 5
- 40) Steam Generator Blowdown System
- 41) Steam Generator Chemical Addition System l.
- 42) Secondary Sampling System
- 43) Compressed Air System l
- 44) Circulating Water Treatment System 13.5.2-2 Amendment No. 5 i -
SHNPP FSAR
- 45) Condensate Polishers and Demineralizers System
- 46) Feedwater Heaters, Vents, and Drains System
- 47) Service Water System
- 48) Traveling Screens and Screen Wash System
- 49) Reservoir Complex System
- 50) Demineralized Water System
- 51) Caustic and Acid System
- 52) Waste Process Building Component Cooling Water System
- 53) Waste Process Non-Essential Chilled Water System
- 54) Essential Services Chilled Water System
- 55) Hydrogen Seal Oil System
- 56) Off-Site Power System f, 57) Plant Lighting System 5
- 58) Communications System
- 59) Secondary Waste Treatment System
- 60) Filter Backwash System
- 61) Chemical Drains System
- 62) Spent Resin Transfer and Storage System
- 63) Solid Waste Processing System
- 64) Waste Holdup and Evaporation Gystem j 65) Caseous Waste Processing System
- 66) Radioactive Equipment Drains System
- 67) Radioactive . Floor Drains System -
- 68) Laundry and Hot Shower System
- 69) Radioactive Sampling System f .
- 70) 'Moieture Separator Reheater System
- 71) Tuchine and Generator Lube 011 System I
i-13.5.2-3 Amendment No. 5
l SHNPP FSAR l i
l
- 72) Gland Sealing System 73). Digital Electro - Hydraulic Control System
- 74) Heat Trace and Freeze Protection System
- 75) Cathodic Protection System
- 76) Compressed Gas System (a) Nitrogen Supply l
(b) Hydrogen Supply (c) Oxygen Supply
-5 (d) Carbon Dioxide Supply
- 77) Seismic Monitoring System ,
- 78) Containment Cooling System
- 79) Fuel Handling Building HVAC System
- 80) Waste Process Building HVAC System
- 81) Reactor Auxiliary Building HVAC System
- 82) Turbine Building HVAC System
- 83) Diesel Generator Building HVAC System b) General Operating Procedures - The General Operating Procedures are the instructions for performing major integrated plant evolutions involving multiple systems such as plant start-up, and shutdown. These procedures provide a coordinated means of tying system operating procedures together and l for changing the overall mode of plant operation. The format of General Operating Procedures is similar to System Operating Procedures. The following is an initial listing of General Operating Procedures:
l 1) Operations- Conduct of Operations
- 2) Filling and Venting the Reactor Coolant System
- 3) Plant Heatup - Mode 5 to Mode 3 l
- 4) Normal . Plant Startup - Mode 3 to Mode 2 5
- 5) Plant Recovery from Reactor Trip
- 6) Plant Power Opera!. ion - Mode 2 to Mode 1
- 7) Plant Shutdown - Mode 1 to Mode 3
- 8) Plant Cooldown - Mode 3 to Mode 5 13.5.2-4 Amendment No. 5
m SHNPP FSAR
- 9) Reactor Coolant System Draining
- 10) Filling Purification and Draining of the Refueling Cavity 5
- 11) Containment Integrity
- 12) Refueling - Mode 6 c) Emergency Operating Procedures - Emergency operating procedures specify operator actions, including manipulation of plant controls for:
- 1) Restoring an operating variable to its normal controlled value when it departs from its range or,
- 2) restoring normal operating conditions following a perturbation or,
- 3) reducing the consequences of an accident or potentially hazardous condition which has already occurred or,
- 4) implementing the emergency plan or,
- 5) preparing for possible hazardous natural occurrences.
Each procedure will identify the symptoms of the conditions, automatic actions
( that may occur, and the inneediate and subsequent operator actions to be taken.
Operating personnel are required to know all immediate actions since the primary responsibility for detection of an emergency and initiation of correctiva action rests upon the operator. The following is an initial listing of Emergency Operating Procedures:
- 1) Reactor Coolant System Depressurization (a)' -Loss of reactor coolant (including recognition of inadequate core cooling)
(b) Steam line rupture (c) Steam generator tube rupture
- 2) Ioss of Reactor Coolant Flow 5
- 3) Loss of Feedwater '
J
- 4) Station Blackout Operation
- 5) Fuel Handling Accident
- 6) Accidental . Release of Liquid Waste
.7) Accidental Release of Waste Gas
-L 8) Reactor Trip 13.5L2-5 Amendment No. 5
SHNPP FSAR
- 9) Control Room Inaccessibility
- 10) Post Accident Containment Hydrogen Removal
- 11) Mal
- unction of Reactor Control System (a) Failure of a RCCA control bank to move (b) Continuous insertion of a RCCA control bank (c)' Continuous withdrawal of a RCCA control bank (d) Dropped RCCA 5l (e) RCCA Misalignment (f) Malfunctioning rod position indicator
- 12) Emergency Boration
- 13) Malfunction of Reactor Makeup Control
- 14) Malfunction of ' Nuclear Instrumentation
- 15) Radiation Monitoring System Alarm
- 16) Turbine Vibration
- 17) Ioss of One Heater Drain Pump
- 18) Loss of. One Feedwater Pump 5l 19) Loss of One Condensate Pump
- 20) Partial Loss of Condenser Vacuum 5{ 21) Loss of Component Cooling Water
- 22) Secondary Load Rejection
- 23) Excessive Primary Plant taakage
- 24) Loss of Instrument Air -
- 25) Reactor Coolant Pump Abnormal Conditions
- 26) Malfunction of RCS Pressure Control System
- 27) Loss of Residual Heat Removal System 1
'28) Seismic Disturbances 13.5.2-6 Amendment No. 5 2
SHNPP FSAR
- 29) Loss of Service Water
- 30) Spurious Safety Injection Recovery d) Annunciator Procedures - Annunciator procedures specify operator actions necessary to respond to an abnormal condition as indicated by an
. alarm.. These procedures include alarm setpoints, probable causes, automatic actions, immediate manual actions, supplementary actions, and applicable reference. He Annunciator Procedures are organized according to their respective annunciator panel numbers and the annunciator's location in that panel.
e) Temporary Operating Procedures - Temporary operacing procedures provide instructions for plant ~ operations which are of a nonrecurring nature such as:
The direction of activities during special testing or maintenance; guidance in unusual situations not within the scope of normal procedures; assuring orderly and uniform operations for short periods of time when the Unit, a system, or component is performing in a manner not covered by existing procedures; or when modifications are made such that portions of the existing procedures do not apply.
13.5.2.2 Other Procedures Maintenance and other activities which may affect the proper functioning of the station's safety-related structures, systems, or components are performed in accordance with approved written procedures. Rese procedures C provide a preplanned method of conducting activities in order to eliminate errors. R ey'are sufficiently detailed so that qualified individuals
.can perform the required function without direct supervision. However, written procedures cannot cover all contingencies and therefore must contain a certain degree of flexibility. He general character and objectives of these procedures are described below, a) Plant Radiation Protection Procedures - Information concerning these procedures is presented in Section 12.5.
b) Emergency Preparedness Procedures - Information concerning these procedures is presented in Section 13.3.
c) Instrument Calibration Procedures - Instrument calibration procedures l 5-provide detailed instructions for the proper maintenance, testing, and adjustment of all safety-related instrumentation and control system, and the
- calibration of measuring and test equipment used in activities affecting the t'
quality of these safety-related systems. Ley ensure measurement accuracies adequate to maintain plant safety-related parameters within operational and j safety limits. He plant electrical maintenance group, under the supervision of the. Electrical Maintenance Supervisor is responsible for developing and implementing these procedures.
- . d) Chemical Procedures - Chemical procedures provide instructions to
.[
control chemical and radio-chemical related activities. Bey are developed
't and implemented by the chemistry and environmental group under the supervis, ion of the Chemistry and Environmental Supervisor. Included in these procedures 13.5.2-7 Amendmane No. 5
SHNPP FSAR are such instructions 'as: the nature and frequency of sampling and analysis to be performed; precorrosive agents which could become sources of radiation -
hazards; and treatment and control of radioactive vaste,s.
e) Radioactive Waste Management Procedures - Procedures for the operation l of the radwante processing systeau provide for the control, treatment, and management of on-site radioactive wastes. These procedures are developed and implemented by the radwaste operations group under the supervision of the Radwaste Operations Supervisor.
5l f) Maintenance Procedures - Maintenance procedures provide instructions which ensure that electrical and mechanical maintenance work is performed safely and correctly.* These procedures are prepared and implemented by 5 the maintenance group under the supervision of the Mechanical and Electrical Maintenance Supervisors.
g) Material Control Procedures - Information concerning these procedures is presented in Section 17.2.
h) Plant Security Procedures - Information concerning these procedures is presented in Section 13.6.
- These procedures will vary fron' simple ones that are within the skill of the craf tsman, to steps from a technical manual, to step by step instructions for 5
coeplex procedures. The complexity of the procedure will be based upon the complexity of the task to be performed.
i i
P 1 ,
l
'13.5.2-8 Amendment No. 5 L
e .
i Applicants' Exhibit Joint Intervenors' Contention I l Docket No. 50-400 l Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant FinalSafety Analysis Report Sections 14.2.2.2, 14.2.3 - 14.2.12.1.7 and 14.2.12 1.
l e-, -- ---- -- , .-, . , . - - , .--,-a r- ,-,--e.. 7 -- - - - , -,---,,----,,----c.,ar. --w,-r- - , ,, -.ev+, . , . +
F, ,
SHNPP FSAR 14.2.2 ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING The CP&L Start-Up Group is responsible for scheduling and executing the Initial Test Prograri. This includes coordinating the various groups having start-up responsibilities, preparation of necessary test procedures, and directing the tests performed. The Start-up Group reports to the Superintendent - Start-up. who is responsible to the CP&L Vice President - Nuclear Operations through the Manager - Plan 6 Operations and Geaeral Manager - Harris Plant for all start-up activities.
Various organizations and their start-up responsibilities are discussed below:
14.2.2.1 SHNPP Plant Staff The plant staff participates to the extent possible in the Initial Test Program. Areas in which the staff will directly participate are as follows:
a) Operating Plant Equipment - The plant operations staff is responsible for operating plant equipment as required to support the testing program.
Operations personnel shall be assigned to perform equipment lineups, take data, clear equipment, and operate equipment for Start-up Engineers directing tests.
b) Maintaining Plant Equipment - The plant naintenance personnel are responsible for maintaining plant equipment after equipment release to start-up f rom Construction.
c) Preparing Operating and Maintenance Procedures and Instructions - The various plant groups prepare their sections of the Plant Operating Manual. This manual contains the necessary plant operating, maintenance, and administrative procedures for the plant. These procedures are approved and used to the extent possible during the Initial Test Prog ram.
d) ~erforming Component Testing and Calibration - The plant maintenance staff performs initial checkout, testing, and calibration of equipment using approved plant maintenance instructions under the Start-up Engineer's direction.
e) Performing Preoperational and Start-up Testing - On a selective basis, members of the plant's technical staff are assigned to the Start-up Group to perform as Start-up Engineers.
14.2.2.2 CP&L Start-up Group The SHNPP Start-up Group is responsible for the Initial Test Program, including directing and coordinating all groups having start-up responsibilities. The Superintendent - Start-up is responsible for directing the Start-up Group. He will also interface with the other participating groups to ensure that responsibilities are carried out in a timely manner to L
14.2.2-1 Amende.nt No. 4
SHNPP FSAR support the start-up schedule. Responsibilities and authority of the Plant '
Start-up organization are as-follows:
a) Superintendent - Start-up
- 1) Supervise the activities of the Startup Group through the Start-up Supervisors.
- 2) Prepare and update the start-up schedu!e.
- 3) Assign overall test responsibility to the Start-up Supervisors.
- 4) Review and approve requests for vendor assistance as recommended by the Start-up Group.
- 5) Review and approve / recommend approval of test procedures, test procedure modifications, and test data in accordance with the Start-up Manual instructions.
- 6) Review and recommend approval of start-up requests for construction and engineering modifications or changes required during the test program.
- 7) Issue periodic progress reports and work schedules for the Start-up Group.
- 8) Issue special reports concerning start-up activities as deemed necessary.
- 9) Review progress of start-up activities with contractors, vendors, and company management.
- 10) Maintain liaison with the plant management, keeping them informed of the test program status, and coordinate with them the activities of plant personnel assigned to start-up activities in conjunction with their training program.
- 11) Represent the Start-up Group on interdepartmental and interorganizational committees associated with the test program.
- 12) Maintain liaison with contractors and vendors to coordinate their activities relating to the test program.
- 13) Responsible for the preparation and ' maintenance of the Start-up Manual.
- 14) Accept Release for Tests and System Turnovers from CP&L Construction.
+
14.2.2-2 Amendment No. 4
SHNPP FSAR
.b) Start-up Supervisor
- 1) l Assign a cognizant Start-up Engineer for each test identified to be required on assigned cystems, and periodically review test assignments ta maintain an even distribution of work load.
2). Supervise the activities lof and provide guidance to the Start-up Engineers reporting to him and assure that their operations are conducted in accordance with SHNPP Start-up Manual instructions.
- 3) Supervise the preparation of test procedures as assigned to the individual Engineer.
- 4) Provide technical guidance and assistance in the preparation of test procedures.
- 5) Recommend plant scheduling changes as necessary to support the testing effort.
- 6) Review and recommend approval of test procedures, test procedure modifications, and test data in accordance with the Start-up Manual procedures.
- 7) Recommend approval of and schedule vendor representative assistance.
- 8) Recommend changes in plant design and/or construction to C facilitate testing, operation, and maintenance.
- 9) Review periodic progress reports and work schedules.
- 10) Assist in the preparation of special reports concerning start-up activities when required.
c) Start-up Engineer l 1) . Conduct all work assignments in accordance with the Start-up Manual and other Start-up procedures / instructions.
- 2) Prepare and recommend for approval-assigned test procedures.
- 3) Conduct all assigned tests and prepare test eports.
- 4) Revicw engineering drawings and documents and prepare requests for construction and engineering changes to facilitate both operation and maintenance.
- 5) Recommend approval of system Release For Tests.
- 6) Define system and subsystem Release For Test boundaries. ,
i 7) Conduct an inspection of assigned systems prior to system Release
'For Test acceptance and recommend the acceptance of systems from construction for testing.
14.2.2-3 Amendm nt No. 4
T SHNPP FSAR
- 8) Coordinate and supervise activities of personnel assigned to support the test program.
14.2.2.3 Ebas .o Services, Inc.
Ebasco Services, under the direction of CP&L is the architect-engineer for the SHNPP. As the design organization, they may participate in resolution of sngineering-design problems discovered during checkout and testing.
14.2.2.4 Westinghouse Electric Corporation Westinghouse on-site personnel will provide technical assistance and act as technical liaison with the Westinghouse design organizations to resolve problems within Westinghouse scope. The Westinghouse Site Manager shall review and recommend approval of all NSSS test procedures to the Start-up Superintendent.
14.2.2.5 Personnel Oualifications Personnel qualifications are discussed in Chapter 13.
14.2.2-4 Amendment No. 4
en -
SHNPP FSAR
~14.2.3 TEST PROCEDURES C 14.2.3.1l - Preoperational Tests i
1 The.preoperational test procedures are those procedures required to i demonstrate, to the' extent practical, the capability of structures, systems, l I: and components, to meet their design criteria to support fuel loading. These procedures are written by the responsible SHNPP Start-up Engineer. The
' Start-up Engineer utilizes the _ system / component design documents, FSAR, Architect-Engineer supplied design. criteria, applicable codes and standards,.
and the NRC Regulatory Guides in preparing the procedures.
To ensure that procedures and test results demonstrate the capability of each system to perform its design basis, the procedures and results are reviewed and approved. by a Joint Test Group (JTC). Approval shall be by unanimous e concurrence of the JTG members which include a representative from the Start-up Group, Operations Group, and Nuclear Plant Engineering Department.
The JTG may meet and act as a committee or may review and approve written submittals at the discretion of the members.
14.2.3.2 Start-up Power Tests The Start-up Power Tests consist of those tests performed during and following
' fuel loading. These include fuel loading, precritical tests, initial criticality, low power testing, and power-ascension tests that confirm design bases and anticipated plant operation. The-test specifications are provided by Westinghouse and the procedures written by the SHNFP Start-up Group.
[(
Since Start-up Power Tests are performed following fuel loading and under requirements of the Technical Specifications and Plant Operating Manual, procedures and test results' approvals are different than approvals for preoperational tests. , Procedures and test results will be reviewed and approval recommended by representatives of the Start-up Group, Westinghouse (NSS only), and the Nuclear Safety Review Committee '(Refer to Section 6 of the Technical Specifications). Final approval will be by the Manager-Operations.
14.2.3.3
- Procedure Format Format for the test procedures is established by the SRNPP Start-up Manual.
Test procedures will contain the following information as applicable: (Not '
- .necessarily in the order listed below) 1.0 Purpose / Objective 4
This consists of a brief description of the test performance parameters and characteristics to be verified. It should include the purposa for which the i _ procedure is intended.
2.0- Acceptance Criteria Contains the general qualitative acceptance criteria against which success or j(
l failure will be judged.
4' 14.2.3-1 Amendmant No. 4
1 SHNPP FSAR 3.0 References References include all supporting information required to perform the test and used to develop the test procedure.
4.0 Test Equipment and Personnel i Contains a list of test equipment that will be required to perform the test. '
This would include special recorders, test panels, gauges, temporary test instruments, etc. Any special personnel needed and their required
_ qualifications should be included.
5.0 Precautions to Special precautions, which are needed for safety of personnel or equipment ensure a. reliable test, are highlighted and clearly described in the test procedure. These precautions may include limitations to be observed during testing and possible problems to watch for. If appropriate, precautions are repeated in the text before the step to which they apply.
6.0 Prerequisites and Initial Conditions Each test for the operation of a system, normally requires that certain activities be performed first, e.g. completion of construction, construction and/or preliminary tests, instrument calibration, component checkout, relief valves ser, v'alve and electrical lineups completed, etc. These independent actions serve to establish the initial conditions required to begin the Test -
Procedure Section.
7.0 Test Procedure Detailed step-by-step instructions in the degree of detail necessary for performing a required function or task are provided. Data is recorded in the procedure itself if possible. Steps to ensure the system is reatored to normal configuration are provided.
8.0 Checkof f and Data Sheets 8.1 Valve Lineup Sheets (Preoperational Tests only)
These sheets specify the initial position of all valves in the system being tested.
8.2 Electrical Lineup Sheets (Preoperational Tests Only)
.These sheets specify the initial position of all circuit breakers, switches, and electrical controls associated with the system being tested.
8.3 Data Sheets Any data sheets used shall be placed in this section.
14.2.3-2 Amendment No. 4
. }
SHNPP FSAR 14.2.4 CONDUCT OF THE TEST PROCRAM 14.2.4.1 Administrative Controls Administrative control of the SHNPP Test Program is maintained by use of approved test procedures. A Start-up Engineer directs each test and verifies by procedure sign-off that the test has been satisfactorily completed. These signed-off procedures will be maintained to document the program.
The signed-off individual procedures assure that the required prerequisites have been met prior to proceeding with the next phase of the test program.
Prerequisites prior to performing start-up power testing are:
a) All preoperational tests listed in Section 14.2.12 should be completed to the satisfaction of Westinghouse and CP&L. Any test enceptions are documented on an Exception List and approved by the General Manager - Harris Plant prior to commencing the Start-up Program.
b) Plant system operation verification is completed to the satisfaction of CP&L and Westinghouse.
c) The NRC has issued a Unit Operating License.
d) Individual Start-up Test prerequisites are verified complete. (See 14.2.12 for general prerequisites).
14.2.4.2 Maintenance / Modification Procedure Prior to system release for test acceptance by CP&L Start-up, all preventive maintenance is performed by CP&L Nuclear Plant Construction Department in accordance with their procedures. After the system has been released to Start-up, the plant's maintenance staff is responsible for preventive and routine plant maintenance. These programs t.re established and operated in accordance with the CP&L Maintenance Management Program. To ensure personnel safety and system integrity, any maintenance performed on the system must be initiated thru and controlled by the start-up engineer and shif t foreman.
Other work which is required after Release For Tests have been accepted includes clearing exceptions and installing design changes or modifications.
In order to assure necessary start-up retesting is completed, this type of work is controlled. The start-up engineer must sign-off that work has been completed and the necessary retesting has been accomplished. Design or engineering changes requested by the Start-up Group or by anyone other than the originating design organization are submitted and approved using the appropriate Start-up Manual Procedure.
14.2.4.3 Test Pe rformance The Start-up Engineer directs the tests and verifies that tests are performed using approved procedures only. If during the test execution the procedure is
[ found to be incorrect, the Start-up Engineer is responsible for obtaining the
( necessary revision approval prior to proceeding with that portion of the test procedure.
14.2.4-1 Amendment No. 4
SHNPP F3AR All revisions are approved prior to test acceptance in the same manner as the original procedure. Revisions may be temporarily approved by CP&L approving authority on the original procedure to allow the testing to continue.
However, temporary revisions must be approved in the same manner as the original procedure prior
- acceptance and final approval of the test.
14.2.4-2 Amendm.nt No. 4
r SHNPP FSAR 14.2.5 REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND APPROVAL OF TESI RESULTS 14.2.5.1 Preoperational Tests Upon completing the preoperational test, the Start-up Engineer reviews the test results and writes a test report. The test report addresses any exceptions or deficiencies and recommendations to correct these, if necessary. The completed preoperational test procedure, results, and test report is then recommended for approval and approved in the same manner as the original procedure.
The preoperational test phase is considered complete when all necessary tests as outlined in Section 14.2.12 have been completed, results approved, and all outstanding preoperational test exceptions have been resolved.
14.2.5.2 Start-up Power Tests As portions of the Start-up Power Test Procedures are completed during power ascension testing, the results will be reviewed against the acceptance criteria. At completion of testing at a power level, the results will be reviewed and approved in the same manner as the original procedure.
Recommendation to proceed to the next power level will be given by the Manager-Operations and Manager-Plant Operations to the General Manager.
Approval to proceed to the next power level is given by the General Manager.
( Upon completion of the complete Start-up Power Test procedure, a report will be written on each procedure results and any outstanding exceptions. The completed procedures, results, and test report will then be recommended for approval and approved in the same manner as the original procedure.
w.
14.2.5-1 Amendment No. 4
C. .
SHNPP FSAR 14.2.6 TEST RECORDS C The records of the individual preoperational and startup tests are completed and filed for the life of the plant. The original copies of completed test procedures with the associted data, including analysis and results of preoperational tests, initial fuel loading, low power tests, and high power tests prior to commercial operation will be maintained in accordance with Carolina Power & Light Company's administrative procedures as described in Section 17.2.17.
L 14.2.6-1 Amendmant No. 4
r SHNPP FSAR 14.2.7 CONFORMANCE OF TEST PROGRAMS WITH REGULATORY GUIDES
( :
The following applicable regulatory guides will be used as guidance in -
development of the initial test program:
I a) Regulatory Guide 1.20, May, _1976, Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and Initial Startup Testing.
b) Regulatory Guide 1.37, March,1973, Quality Assurance Requirements for Cleaning of Fluid Systems and Associated Components of Water-Cooled Nuclear Plants.
c) Regulatory Guide 1.41, March, 1973, Preoperational Testing of Redundant On-Site Electric Power Systems to Verify Proper Load Group Assignments.
d)' Regulatory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2, March, 1978, Design, Testing, and Maintenance Criteria for Engineered - Safety - Feature Atmosphere Cleanup System Air Filtration and Absorption Units of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants.
e) Regulatory Guide 1.68, August, 1979, Initial Test Programs for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants.
f) Regulatory Guide 1.68.2, July, 1978, Initial Startup Test Program to Demonstrate Remote Shutdown Capability for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants.
g) Regulatory Guide 1.79, September, 1975, Preoperational Testing of Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Pressurized Water Reactors with the following clarifications / exceptions:
Reg. Position Clarifications / Exceptions C.1.b.(2) The capability to realign valves for .
recirculation shall be tested for the plant. l 15 -
Test of a recirculation sump to demonstrate vortex control, acceptable pressure drops across suction lines and valves, and adequate NPSil will be conducted for the plant by model tests. CP&L l15 will verify by appropriate physical examination and flow demonstration test that recirculation sump suction lines are not obstructed and that valves are properly installed. l 15 14.2.7-1 Amendment No. 15
~
SHNPP FSAR C.1.c.(1) Blowdown will be into the open reactor vessel at ambient pressure. This condition will allow the rapid accumulator dump which is necessary for evaluation of the system performance.
Accumulator pressure will be less than normal operation pressure, C.I.c.(3). Initial RCS pressure for this test will be greater than the normal accumulator precharge pressure but less than the normal RCS operating pressure. Flow will be injected through a test line f rom the hydro pump and will not come f rom the accumulator discharge.
h) Regulatory Guide 1.68.3, April,1982, Preoperational Testing of Instrument and Control Air Systems.
i) Regulatory Guide 1.9 5, Revision 1, January,1977, Protection of Nuclear 7l Power Plant Control Room Operators Against an Accidental Chlorine Release.
y j) Regulatory Guide 1.140, Revision 1, October 1979, Design, Testin g, and Maintenance Criteria for Normal Ventilation Exhaust System Air Filtration and Adsorption Units of Light - Water - Cooled Nuclear Power Plants.
k) Regulatory Guide 1.108, Revision 1, August ,197 7, Periodic Testing of Diesel Generator Units Used as On-site Electric Power Systems at Nuclear Power Plants.
14.2.7-2 Amendment No. 7
SHNPP FSAR 14.2.8 UTILIZATION OF REACTOR OPERATING AND TESTING EXPERIENCE s DEVELOPMENT OF TEST PROGRAMS The CP&L SHNPP Initial Test Program will utilize information gained from operating and testing experiance in other similar nuclear plants. This information is used to provide guidance in developing test procedures and schedules and to alert personnel to potential problem areas in the testing program.
The development of this program for utilizing testing and operating experience is the responsibility of the Superintendent - Start-Up with the direct isplementation of the program being delegated to the Start-Up Supervisor.
Information regarding operating and testing experiences will be obtained f rom NRC Licensee Event Report summaries. These reports are reviewed by the start-up organization to identify adverse trends or special testing which should be included in the test program.
The operating experience program consists of an initial review to be conducted prior to the conduct of preoperational tests and an ongoing review during the remainder of the test program. The initial review examines pertinent operating data and abnormal events on similar plants which occurred during a period of two years prior to the review. The review is conducted so as to allow sufficient time for data to be analyzed and incorporated in test procedures. Any new information will be reviewed on a regular basis during the test program so as to address current testing problems.
14.2.8-1 Amendment No. 4
SHNPP FSAR 14.2.9 TRIAL USE OF PLANT OPERATING AND EMERGENCY PROCEDURES The plant procedures that are used or referenced during the preoperational and start-up test programs are plant operating procedures and instructions, maintenance procedures, chemistry procedures, radiation protection procedures, and emergency instructions.
The adequacy of plant operating and emergency procedures is checked to the maximum extent possible during the preoperational and start-up test programs.
Where plant conditions meet the prerequisties of a plant procedure, the plant procedure is followed during preoperational and start-testing. Where plant conditions do not meet the prerequisites of the plant procedure, then applicable portions of the plant procedure are referenced or incorporated in the preoperational and/or start-up procedure. This will assure that these procedures are correct, safe, and usable when the plant is ready for commercial operation.
. Plant procedures are prepared by plant personnel with assistance of other qualified personnel. The procedure is tested and revised, as necessary, during on-site training of plant personnel and the performance of preoperational and start-up test programs.
+
L 14.2.9-1 Amendment No. 4
rr , ,
SHNPP FSAR
'14.2.10 ~ INITIAL FUEL LOAD' AND INITIAL CRITICALITY Fuel loading begins when prerequisite system tests and operations are satisfactorily completed and the facility operating licenses are obtained.
Upon ' completion of fuel loading, the reactor upper internals and pressure vessel head are' installed and additional mechanical and electrical tests are' performed. The purpose of this phase of activities is to prepare the system for. nuclear operation and to establish that design requirements necessary for operation are achieved. The core loading and post loading tests are described below.
.14.2.10.1 Initial Fuel Load
- The overall responsibility and direction for initial core loading is exercised by the General Manager - Harris Plant. The overall process of initial core loading is, in general, directed from the operating floor of the Containment Building.- Procedures-for the control of personnel and the maintenance of containmentEsecurity are established prior to fuel loading.
The .as-loaded core configuration is specified as part of the core design studies conducted in advance of Uhit startup.
The core is loaded in the reactor vessel and submerged in water containing enough dissolved boric acid to maintain a calculated core effective multiplication factor of 0.90 or lower. The fuel transfer tube is flooded, gg but the remainder of the refueling cavity is dry during initial core
(
loading. Core moderator chemistry conditions (particularly boron concentration) are prescribed in the core loading procedure document and are verified periodically by chemical analysis of moderator samples taken prior to and during core loading operation.
' Core loading instrumentation consists of two permanently installed cource ,
range (pulse type) nuclear ~ channels, two temporary incore source range channels,' and a third temporary channel which can be used as a spare. The permanent channels are monitored in the Control Room by licensed operators; the ' temporary channels are insta iled in the' Containment Building and are-monitored by reactor engineering personnel. At least one permanent channel is equipped with an audible count rate indicator. Both unit channels have the
. capability of displaying the neutron flux level on strip chart recorders. The temporary channels indicate on rate meters with a minimum of I channel recorded on a' strip chart recorder. Minimum count rates of two counts per second, attributable to core ' neutrons, are required on at least two of the four. (i.e.. 2 temporary and 2 permanent source range detectors) available nuclear. source channels at all times following installation of the first source.
The temporary fuel loading source range detectors and the permanently
- installed source range channels will be calibrated prior to fuel loading. The calibration is performed using a portable neutron source with provisions for
~
positioning the source near the detectors. T'ae' neutron response of each detector muse be checkad following any delay in the fuel loading of eight hoara un ionger.
14.2.10-1 Amendment No, 11
m-- ,
SENPP FSAR Temporary neutron sources are introduced into the core at appropriate specified points in the core loading. program to ensure a neutron population corresponding to a minimum count rate of 2 counts /sec for adequate monitoring of the core.
Fuel assemblies together with inserted components (control rod assemblies, burnable poison inserts, source spider, or thimble plugging devices) are placed in the reactor vessel one at a time according to a previously established and approved sequence which was developed to provide reliable core monitoring with minimum possibility of core mechanical damage. The core loading procedure documents include a detailed tabular check sheet which specified inserts from its initial position in the storage racks to its final position in the core. Multiple checks are made of component serial numbers and types at successive transfer points to guard against possible inadvertent exchanges or substitutions of components, and at least 2 fuel assembly status boards are maintained throughout the core loading operation.
An initial nucleus of eight assemblies, the first of which contains an 1
activated neutron source, is the minimum source-fuel nucleus which permits subsequent meaningful inverse count rate monitoring. This initial nucleus is determined by calculation and previous experience to be markedly suberitical (k,ff f,0.90) under the required conditions of loading.
Each subsequent fuel addition is accompanied by detailed neutron count rate monitoring to determine that the just loaded fuel assembly does not eveessively increase the count rate and that the extrapolated inverse count (
ratio is not decreasing for unexplained reasons. The results of each loading (
step are evaluated by CP&L and its technical advisors before the next prescribed step is started.
Criteria for safe loading require that loading operations stop immediately if:
a) An unanticipated increase in the neutron count rates by a factor of 2 occurs on all responding nuclear channels during any single loading step after the initial nucleus of 8 fuel assemblies is loaded (excluding anticipated change due to detector and/or source movement).
b) The neutron count rate on any individual nuclear channel increases by a factor of five during any single loading step after the initial nucleus of 8 fuel assemblies is loaded (excluding anticipated changes due to detector and/or source movements).
An alarm in the Containment and Control Room is coupled to the source range 4 channels with a set-point at five times the count rate on either channel.
This alarm automatically alerts the loading operation to an indication of high count rate and requires an immediate stop of all operacions until the
! situation is evaluated by the applicant. Normally the alarm used for this purpose is the containment evacuation alarm. In the event the evacuation alarm is actuated during core loading and after it has been determined that no hazards to personnel exist, special preselected personnel are permitted to remain in the Containment to evaluate the cause and determine future action. g2 14.2.10-2 Amendm.nt No. 4
F. .
SHNPP FSAR Core loading procedures specify alignment of fluid systems to prevent C inadvertent dilution of the reactor-coolant, restrict the wovement of fuel to preclude the possibility of mechanical damage, prescribe the conditions under which loading can proceed, identify chr.ns of responsibility and authority, and provide for continuous and completa fuel and core component accountability.
1 14.2.10.2 Initial criticality The approach to initial criticality will be conducted according to approved written procedures which specify the plant cond'itions, safety and precautionary measures, and specific instructions. The procedures also delineate the chains of responsibility and authority in effect during this period of operation. Alignment of the fluid systems is specified to provide controlled " start" and "stop" as well as adjustments of the rate of the
- approach to criticality.
. Initial criticality is achieved by reactor coolant system (RCS) boron concentration reduction, and by withdrawal of control rods.
Inverse count-rate ratio monitoring, using data from the normal plant source-range instrumentation, is used as an indication of the proximity and
~
rate of approach to criticality. Inverse count-rate ratio data are plotted as a function of rod bank position during rod motion and'as a function of primary water addition during RCS boron concentration reduction.
A source range count rate of at least 2 cps will be visible on the start-up channels, and the signal to noise ratio will be known to be greater than 2 prior to.commenci.g start-up.
4 Initially, the shutdown and' control banks of control rods are withdrawn incrementally in the normal withdrawal sequence, leaving the last withdrawn control bank inserted far enough in the core to provide effective control when criticality is achieved.
The boron concentration in the RCS is then reduced by the addition.of primary water. Criticality is achieved during boron dilution or by subsequent rod withdrawal following boron dilution. The rate of primary water addition, and
- hener the rate of approach to criticality, may be reduced as the reactor l approaches criticality to ensure that effective control is maintained.
l Throughout this period, samples'of the reactor coolant are obtained and analyzed for boron concentration.
j Written procedures specify plant conditions, precautions, and specific l instructions for the approach to criticality.
I i Successive stages of control rod assembly group withdrawal and of boron concentration reduction will be monitored by observing changes in neutron count rate, as indicated by the permanent source-range nuclear instrumentation, as functions of group position during rod motion, reactor coolant boron concentration, and primary water addition to the RCS during
,[ dilution. Throughout this period, samples of the reactor coolant will be j .( obtained and analyzed for boron concentration.
l l
14.2.10-3 Amendment No. 4
,e -, . . - . , ,---y, % + .. .,..,,y- ,--,y--w.,om ..w-._ _ _ . - - - r, - ~-e, .,-_-e.---,g--,-,w, - - ,,, , . , , - - , ,,,-- .-ee , . - - . - . - - - , - ,
SHNPP FSAR Inverse count-rate ratio monitoring will be used as an indication of the proximity and rate of approach to criticality during control rod assembly group withdrawal and during reactor coolant boron dilution. The rate of approach will be reduced as the reactor approaches the time extrapolated for criticality to ensure that the approach to criticality will be less than one decade per minute. Criticality predictions for boron concentration and contrcl rod positions will be provided and criteria as well as actions to be taken will be established if actual plant conditions deviate from predicted values.
14.2.10.3 Low Power Testing Following initial criticality, a program of reactor physics measurements will be undertaken to verify that the basic static and kinetic characteristics of the core are as expected and that the values of the kinetic coefficients assumed in the safeguards analysis are conservative.
Procedures will specify the sequence of tests and measureraents to be continued and the conditions under which each is to be performed in order to ensure both safety of operation and the validity and consistency of the results obtained.
If test results deviate significantly from design predictions, if unacceptable behavior is revealed, or if unexplained anomalies develop, the plant will be brought to a safe, stable condition and the situation reviewed to determine the course of subsequent plant operation.
These measurements will be made at low power and primarily at or near normal operating temperature and pressure. Measurements will be made in order to (
verify the calculated values of control rod bank reactivity worths, the (
isothermal temperature coetficient under various core conditions, differential boron concentration reactivity worth, and critical boron concentrations as functions of control rod configuration. In addition, measurements of the relative power distributions will be made, and a concurrent test will be conducted on the instrumentation including the source and intermediate range nuclear channels. The test will verify that a minimum of a half decade overlap has been established for these channels.
14.2.10.4 . Power Level Escalation When the operating characteristics of the Unit are verified by low power tes:ing, a program of power level escalation in successive stages brings the l Unit to its full rated power level. Both reactor and balance of plant operational characteristics are closely examined at each stage and the relevance of the safety analysis verified before escalation to the next programmed level is effected.
Measurements are made to determine the relative power distribution in the core as functions of power level and control assembly group position.
Secondary system heat balances ensure that the several indications of power level are consistent and provide bases for calibration of the power range nuclear channels. The ability of the Reactor Protection System to respond effectively to signals from primary and secondary instrumentation under a variety of conditions encountered in normal operations is verified, f 14.2.10-4 Amendment No.-4
r_
SHNPP FSAR At prescribed power levels the dynamic response characteristics of the Reactor C Coolant and Main Steam Supply Systems are evaluated. The responses of system components are measured for design step and ramp changes in load, turbine trip, and trip of a single control rod assembly.
Adequacy of radiation shielding is verified by neutron and gamma radiation 4 surveys inside the Containment and throughout the plant.
The sequence of tests, measurements, and intervening operations will be prescribed in the power escalation procedures.
4 i'
L ..
14.2.10-5 Amendmant No. 4
SHNPP FSAR 14.2.11 ' TEST PROGRAM SCHEDULE ,
The sequential schedule for the preoperational testing of individual systems and components based on-fuel loading date is shown in Figure 14.2.11-1. The sequential schedule 'c lattial startup performed subsequent to fuel loading is-shown in Figure 14.4.'l-2. These schedules show certain milestones at which time the tests, or por: ions of test, will be completed and the overall time frame in which the test will be conducted. Detailed schedules for the test program will be developed on a continuing basis as plant completion progresses.
15 Station structures, systems, and components which are relied upon to prevent or mitigate consequences of postulated accidents will be fully tested to the maximum extent practicable prior to fuel load. Certain systems will have part of the preoperational testing performed after fuel load due to system configuration (e.g. Control Rod Drive Mechanism, Automatic Reactor Control, In-core Moveable Detectors). Such systems will be adequately tested prior to fuel load to provide reasonable assurance of proper operation after fuel load.
The preparation of test procedures for a particular system will be scheduled to support the fuel loading date. Preoperational proc'dures e preparation will be started approximately 36 months prior to fuel load ot the earliest date consistent with the availability of approved reference information. These
( procedures should be available for review by required personnel 60 days prior to use.
It is planned to have approved initial start-up procedures available for review by required personnel at least 60-days prior to fuel loading.
14.2.11-1 Amendment No. 15
f I. ...
SHNPP FSAR y 14'.2.12 INDIVIDUAL TEST DESCRIPTIONS b
Y These summaries describe the various tests which are specified as preoperational tests and start-up tests in Regulatory Guide 1.68.
Preoperational tests must be completed before fuel loading, and start-up tests must be coa.pleted af ter fuel loading. The scope and titles of these summaries may not in all cases correspond directly to the actual test procedures which will be used during the two test programs. Certain test procedures may include more than one test as described in these summaries, and in some cases, tests described in one summary may be covereo under more than one proc 2 dure.
The overall scope and content of the tests described in these summaries will be addressed in final procedures. It should be noted that all system acceptance tests are designated as preoperational tests, but only those tests listed in Section 14.2.12.1 must be completed prior to fuel loading. The test program will include those features designed to prevent or mitigate anticipated transients without scram ( AWS) that will be incorporated into the SHN?P design.
4 4.2.12.1 Preoperational rest Summaries The following is an index of preoperational test summaries described in this' Section:
- 1. Heat Tracing and Freeze Protection Test Summary
-2. Main, Auxiliary and Start-Up Transformers Test Summary
, 3. 6.9 kV Switchgear Test Summary
- 4. 480 V AC Distribution Test Summary
- 7. Normal Emergency AC/DC Lighting Systems Test Summary
- 8. Communications System Test Summary
- 9. Annunciator System Test Summary
- 10. Reactor Protection System Engineered Safety Features Actuation Logic Test Summary
-11. Reactor Protection System Engineered Safety Features Actuation Test Summary 12.' Piping Vibration Test Summary
'i -
- 13. Metal Impact Monitoring System Test Summary .
?.. 14. Radiation Monitoring System Test Summary
- 15. Excore Nuclear Instrumentation System Test. Summary
- 16. Emergency Diese1' Generator Test Summary
' Amendment No. 11 14.2.12-l'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ _ _ J