ML20133F236
| ML20133F236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1985 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1452, NUDOCS 8510100164 | |
| Download: ML20133F236 (118) | |
Text
, GR/GWAL UN11ED STATES dc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE NIATTER OF: DOCKET NO:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS DAVIS - BESSE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 O
V LOCATION: OAK HARBOR, OHIO PAGES: 1 117 DATE: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1985 n
9,@@_ @ biM I[c.e-wzT
.1;' '.i f' '3QOW:f q
bo d;y.g ua u a .iw '=ice=:-otRemp ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 O' Oficial Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
\ 7E COVERACE 8510100164 851004 45Y PDR
1 1
,3
% f 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON DAVIS-BESSE 10 NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 11 REVIEW OF COURSE OF ACTION PRIOR 12 TO RESTART C1 13 OAK HARBOR, OHIO
%)
14 October 4, 1985 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (3 24
%)
25 Ceforatti, Rennillo #- -
& Matthews cour, neoorvers . [M
. . ._;_, _;_=______- __ _
h' PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1985 The contents of this stenographic transcript of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory .
Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at ,
this meeting accepts any resp'onsibility for errors or inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript._
4 O
- -x . - -w.:.=: . . =:.---
-- . =a : =. = = == .u.:a ==.:: :.::. :=
2 1D MR .. REMICK: The meeting
/ '. '
it, )
2- w i l' l'i n o w , come toforder..This.is a meeting of :
'3 the ACRS1 Subcommittee on' Davis-Besse.
- 4 I'm1Forrest Rem i c k , subcommittee chairman. ,
'5. ~ Infattendance, starting down at,the end- ;
6- of the' table, Jesse Ebersole, Charles Wylie, 7_ . Carlye Michelson, and David Ward, who is 8 chairman of the ACRS full committee.
9 .At'my left.is Herman Alderman, ACRS staff 10 member for this meeting.
The meeting is being NRC s t a f f e,d .
12 The purpose of.this meeting is to review 13 actions ~ taken prior to restarting following the
[( )
i,'
14 loss of feedwater incident on June 9th and 15 other related matters.
16 A similar meeting will be held next
.17 ~ Thursday before the f u'l l ACRS at 1:45 P.M. in 18 Washington, D.C.
19.. The rules for participation in tod a y' s
-20 meeting have been announced as part of the 21 notice of this meeting and that was published 22 in the Federal Register on September 25, 1985.
23 I t- is requested that each speaker first 24 identify himself or herself and speak with i
25 sufficient clarity and volume so that he or she Ceforotti, Rennillo
& M50ChmD_Eamcumm_ I_____
3 1 can be readily heard.
2 I have received no written comments from
. (vY 3 the members of the public and no requests for 4 time to make oral statements frOm the members F
5 of the public.
6 Do any of the other subcommittee members 7 have comments at this time?
8 (No response.)
9 Then we'll proceed with the meeting in 10 accordance with the schedule.
11 I wo u l.d like to point out we have 12 a p p r o x im a te l y four hours this afternoon and we
(~T 13 have broken it into a presentation by the V
14 licensee led by Mr. Joe Williams.
15 It will be my job to keep us on schedule, 16 therefore, I would ask the presenters to keep 17 within the timetable and I would urge my 18 colleagues to allow the presenters tc present 19 the information.
20 We will have adequate time at the end of 21 the licensee's presentation and staEf 22 presentation for detailed questions, therefore, 23 I urge my colle ag ues to ask questions during 24 the presentation only for clarification, more br, 25 extensive or broader questions should be Cefaratti, Rennillo >-
& Matthews ' cour, Reporteri (M
- - . ., .. . - . . - - . =.:.=..=.==.-
4
.1 written down for the ex tens iv e question and (x) 2 answer period that we have allowed.
3 Without further ado, I turn the meeting
.4 over to Mr. Williams.
5 MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, 6 it is a pleasure to be here with you.
7 I know you are more interested in 8 technical issues, the status of Davis-Besse, 9 problemmatic issues also related that need 10 resolving if we are to achieve a goal of
- 11. excellence.
12 We intend Davis-Besse to acnieve, by way f) 13~ of background, I spoke to Mr. Williamson, in xs 14 the April time frame, took a look at the 15 operation out here in May, read the various 16 reports from NRC and came to some conclusions 17 of what needed to be done to improve the 18 performance of Davis-Besse and had essential 19 agreement with Mr. Williamson before I decided 20 to finally come out and we agreed that I would 21 come out here but I d idn' t get on the scene 22 until July because I had to close out 23 my other business.
(~') 24 But I d idn ' t come out here specifically
%/
25 because of the June 9th event.
Ceforotti, Rennillo d
& Matthews couri R.oorter. . . . b
5 l' Let's have the next slide.
[} 2 The organization that I found when I came
-.' w/ .
3 here was not to my liking on what I t ho ug h t was 4 conducive.to good, sound functional operation F.
5, and so I changed it, we are in the process of 6 changing it.
7 This is the way it sets today.
L 8 The dash lines around the boxes means l 9' that is a new position.
L 10' The ones with the slashed sides are the f 11 old ones that existed, but I moved it to a new 12- position.
- - 13- I'm Senior Vice President of Nuclear, 14 Assistant Vice President of Administration 15 Personnel.
16 I have the s e v e r, people reporting to me 17 and I'm' comfortable with that.
18- I found a lot ofLtalent at Davis-Besse 19 when I got here and I d idn' t thirk some of it 20 was properly positioned.
21 So I created the position of the nuclear 22 engineering group directly uner the plant 23 manager, then, administrative 1y to head up the 24 engineering group, also brings to it an r-)
ss 25 operational flavor for nuclear admissions to Ceforotti, Rennillo , adie
& Matthews cour, n.por,.r._bh_
, ,- . . . , - . - , ..... . . ~. .-
1 6
1 operate properly.
() 2- Ma terials manag er , one of the problems 3 here was a spare parts support for the 4 maintenance department.
5 The range is not what it should be, the 6 department is not what it should be, and one o f-7 the problems was we did not have in the nuclear 8 admission a n yb'o d y that was responsible for 9- materials, it was solely on corporate support 10 and we b r o ug ht in a very hig hly qualified 11 material manager to do that for us.
12- I want to talk now a little more about f])
( 13 the details of the organization.
14 The nuclear eng inee r ing group director, I 15 brought the operations engineer section of the 16' plant and put it under him.
17 I have established a nuclear plant 18 systems group, I like the engineers to know the 19 design basis of the systems. They know the 20 systems and the operational aspects of it in 21 great detail, make sure that operating 22 procedures do, in fact, reflect the de s ig n of 23 the equipment.
24 They establish the maintenance
(~J}
~
- 25 requirement for the system and they are l-i Ceforotti, Rennillo
_ _ -------_ A Matth02 haan"cn
o 7
1 responsible for the care and feeding of the
' ) -2 systems and components of the plant, the LJ 3 engineering service manager, that includes 4 bringing all our drawings and all our E 5 supporting documentation from Bethel and Dave 6 Berg and relocate on site and they will be '
7 doing line share of all the eng ineer ing .
8 I intend to replace the many consultants 9 with our own people, it will take time, but 10 tha t's the direction we are moving.
11 The nuclear facility engineer and 12 director on this side was here and that was the 13 extent of the eng inee r ing group when I got here, v
^}
14 We pulled the operations e ng i nee r i ng out 15 of the plan, but that d id n ' t mean that we i
16 didn't leave some engineers down there in the .
17 plant.
18 We brought in a new plant engineer, who 19 was the assistant plant manager at Waterford, 20 for operations at the summer station and who 21 had cut his teeth in the business at Point 22 Beach, elevated him, established the position l
23 of assistant plant manager for operations, put r3 24 in operations superintendent and tha t's pretty l 'bj
~
25 standard in that area, with the SPA reporting l
l CefernHi, Rennillo d =
a Monhews couri 9. pori.,. ,, ,
8 1 to the assistant plant manager.
2 The major organization was not really
- ( J 3 nonexistent, but just not functional, wa sn' t 4 established at the level it should have been 5 established, we couldn't attract the talent, I E 6 established the assistant plant manager of 7 maintenance. I brought in an experienced
[ 8 maintenance manager and he'll talk to you a 9 little later.
10 The new positions we established, you can 11 see what was, I and C superintendent and 12 mechanical superintendent --
/'N 13 The positions that are combined are G
14 yellow flag s. This guy was called a 15 maintenance superintendent and he was down here 16 in the o rg ani za t ion .
17 MR. MICHELSON: Wherever I 18 see a yellow flag, a comparable position did 19 exist?
20 MR. WILLIAMS: Not a 21 comparable one but was purported to do that d 22 function at some level.
23 The green boxes are new positions.
24 Technical support manag er , 12 engineers 25 left in the plant in this group that do the l
Ceforotti, Rennillo d
& Matthys _9yriy. en.ri__
_ J
9 1 immediate engineering support to the limit of
[')
v 2 their ability and if they can't then they 3 communicate with the group here.
4 MR. MICHELSON: If you never 5 had a technical superintendent until now, how 6 was that handled?
7 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, you 8 have a supervisor down there, you have very few 9 foremen, the foremen primarily did the 10 paperwork, the work gangs were union people led 11 by group leaders who were also union and it was 12 just not, it was just not an organization with 13 support.
(~)'
(
14 MR. MICHELSON: I think I 15 understand.
16 MR. EBERSOLE: You know 17 these organizational charts always blow my mind 18 a little bit. I'm looking for the continuity 19 thread of new functions that will take the 20 place of what was the former, I guess laxity 21 attitude or whatever, that permitted standing 22 deficiencies and design to ex is t until a crisis 23 arose, where can I find that thread or
,e5 24 continuity?
L)-
25 MR. WILLIAMS: The thread Ceforotti, Rennillo 3M8"E?s__cogryppenfr L _ dh,
,g g
- _. . _ _ ~ - - .. -
. _ i; 10 1 would be found in the positions that are
'( ) 2 established.
v 3 I b r o ug h t in a very strong plant manager, 4 I can detail his function out in written 5- documents, which they are, the key is to pay 6 enough money and elevate the level of l
7 maintenance, where he could speak witn an 8, authoritative voice, you pay the money to get 9 the r ig ht one and then pay the money to get the 10 r ig ht kind of guys in these positions.
11 MR. EBERSOLE: Would he have, 12 critiquing and having some influence, define
(^
-v) 13 very clearly as deficient, inadequate design?
14 MR. WILLIAMS: If inadequate,
- 15 this gentleman has enoug h clout .
16 On Tuesday, he is sitting r ig ht there 17 along with the plant manag er .
18 MR. EBERSOLE: Had he been 19 here an electric waterpump?
20 MR. WILLIAMS: The guy I 21 have here now would.
22 MR. EBERSOLE: That would 23 hold wa te r .
/~T 24 !!R . UILLIAMS: Hold water V
25 today.
Coforotti, Rennillo
. . _ _ __4 Matthew 01 eaun n.anm $
n,- -
11 1 MR. EBERSOLE: It didn't
() '
2 hold water way back.
3 -MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not so 4 sure it was said. But I'll assure you that the 5 people that we have in these slots, not the 6 people that I b ro ug h t in, Mr. Quennoz, moved to 7 group engineering, he is not a darn bit bashful 8 about telling me what is required.
9 One thing, he has somebody going to go 10 get it or take some other measures.
11 MR. EBERSOLE: Do you ntend 12 to do an overview or c r :f t i q ue on some other-13 aspects of the plant or just this single
(")i t
14 transient that happened.
15 MR. WILLIAMS: It has 16 nothing to do with this, this is what I would 17 have done.
18 Mr. Willi am so n before-the June Event 19 happened, we 1ooked at the specific different 20 happenings, probably would have been slower in 21 getting into those or im pl em e n t i ng these, 22 certainly that Event created all this, I don't 23 get some as argument about resources I probably r% 24 would have.
U.
25 MR. WYLIE: Is there a plan Ceforotti, Rennillo Ann
& Matthews cour, n.nor,.r. .
,J , ,
12 1 program for analyzing and identifying symptoms 2 which may lead to unsafe conditions in the 3 plant?
4 MR. WILLIAMS: I think what 5 we are doing now in analyzing our status 6 because of the June 9th Event does, in great 7 measure as a starting point precisely what you 8 are talking about.
9 The talented group of people that I set 10 up to look at that and recommend short term and 11 long term actions, covers a multiplicity of 12 system actions.
13 The group that we set up, the analysis 14 work
- hat we have done since the incident
')5 regarding feed and bleed capability and short 16 term, long term, the indepth look that people 17 are taking of the systems that are involved, or 18 of the components that failed during the June 9 19 Event that covers quite a bit of ground.
20 More im po r ta n tly , we recognized, of 21 course, we can get an engineering solution to 22 those and fix those so they would work as 23 de s ig ned to do.
24 It came to the question what about all 25 the other systems that impact on safety.
Ceforotti, Rennillo 4-
& Matthrn ha crr,un EDl.} ------
l I
13 r
1 So, we set up groups of engineers to look
) 2. at that and we'll talk about that in detail
_ 3 later to look at those systems and review those 4 systems-to see that their maintenance history s
5 and failure, talking to operators and
. 6 maintenance people, to determine what things 7 need to be done there and.also what testing we 8 had to do to assure onrselves, you uncover a 9 great deal when you start pulling the threads.
10 I hope and intend in the future that 11 those things will be attacked on a day to day 12 basis, the things that we find, we are going
() 13 through all the hangars ag a in , for examnle, in 14 what 7 or 8 of our systems, going back id 15 reviewing our hangars and support syste .
16 I feel confident tht by the time I get 17 ready to start, we'll have a lot of wh4t I 18 think you were talking about publisned as the 19 basis I hope I put in place the o rg an i za t ions 20 of people that were dedicated and inquisitive .
21 e no ug h that you just keep doing this thing as 22 matter'of course or routine.
23 MR. REMICK: Other than the
(^N 24 question on the yellow flag, we have gone
\_.)
25 beyond the clarifications of what is before us.
Ceforotti, Rennillo /
.3 MetthCCD-@mn3msvon __ _$
w__ . . _ . _ . . _ ._ . - . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . - .
14 1 I think these are generally questions we 2 can pursue in the question and answer period.
3 Let's proceed, please.
4 MR. WILLIAMS: Another plant 5 manager established the plant superintendent 6 and planning schedule and organization, 7 computer systems manag er .
8 If you are going to run one of these 9 plants and keep on the line as much as possible, 10 you know as well as I do how im po r ta n t good 11 scheduling and planning, the gentleman I 12 brought in to head that organization up was 13 occupied in the same position at American 14 Electric Po we r Plant at Twin Cook Plant and 15 worked for me before so I know what his 16 capabilities are.
17 MR. WARD: Question, does 18 your computer systems manager, does that 19 include the on line computer systems, the 20 process computers or just your data management?
21 MR. WILLIAMS: Data 22 m a n ag em e n t computer.
23 There is a summary of the maj or changes 24 that I made, I have a new plant manager in 25 place, assistant plant manager established, Ceforotti, Rennillo - -
8 Matthews cour,p poner. C.'UllU
7_ -
i
- 15 1 assistant plant manager, maintenance department, 2 key people hired. Materials manager has been 3 established.
t
, 4 We can't have an organization where 5 people don' t know what is expected of them. We C
6 are going to do a writeup and complete position 7 descriptions for all of the positions, some 960, 8 there were 630 when I got here and we expanded 9 the organization to 960.
10 We have a 12 trailer complexes out here 11 to accommodate those and engineering just needs 12 to be where the action is.
'^'
13 The training director now reports 14 directly to me, before this he was reporting to 15 the nuclear service manager.
16 We have a new centralized planning 17 d ep a r tm en t established and nuclear eng ineer i ng 18 has been silbstantially in charge and is being 19 staffed.
20 One of the most im po r t a n t thing s , in 21 increasing the organization from 630 to 960 22 allows me to bring eng inee r ing in-house and 23 beef up the organization.
24 I found that we were not competitive
~
)
25 salary-wise and I have the agreement of Mr.
Ceforatti, Rennillo -
& Matthews cour, n.per,.r. $((y
m . -, ~. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- = - .-.....--..i--.- ,
16 L -
F 1 Williamson to raise the salaries to a
() 2 competitive level and they are being raised on
[-
3 the order of 14 percent across the board, some 4 as h ig h as 25 percent, and some as high as 60 5 percent in January of this year and 40 percent t.
6 in January of next year and yearly merit raises 7 go on as before.
8 I intend to stabilize the organization l 1
9 and go and get the best talent to fill the 10 vacant positions.
11 That is one of the major problemmatic 12 changes.
13: There was no umbrella under which'all the L( )
14 procedures were be i ng written so that you can 15 assure yourself there was no conflict between 16 procedures.
17 We have a maj or operation going on to 18 rewrite the procedures, at the same time 19 without that umbrella we still have to proceed 20 with an i n t e rm ed i a te rewrite of maintenance 21 procedures and operational procedures and later 22 on refurbish and redo them again to fit 23 absolutely under that umbrella.
(Ni x_/
24 The other real major thing is for the 25 con f ig ur a t ion management program, probably 12 Ceforotti, Rennillo d 4 Matthews coun n. pen.n .)
- .. . . . . .. - - _ ~. ._.
17 1 million dollar record, to ascertain what we I'{
v -
2 have in the plant, c om po n en ts , systems so we 3- can write accurate system directions to give 4 the operators the correct design basis for r 5 operating the systems, pr ov id e up to date 6 manuals and accurate base for establishing the 7 spare parts requirements here at the plant.
8 So there are a lot of things going on in 9 parallel.
10 Now, I'd like to introduce to you Mr.
11 Bill O'Connor who will briefly talk about the
-12 operational changes that will come about 13 because of the June 9th Event.
("/
x_
T 14 Bill is assistant plant manager for 15 operations.
16 MR. MICHELSON: Mr. Chairman, 17 can we ask the questions after each speaker?
18 MR. REMICK: It will be only 19 one hour.
20 How many speakers do you have in your 21 total presentation?
22 MR. WILLIAMS: Five.
23 MR. REMICK: That means 73 24 about ten minutes per speaker.
\_/
25 MR. MICHELSON: It gets kind Ceforotti, Rennillo d 4 Matthews__ _cgr, n.non.,i_ _ _ _ g) _ _ _ _ _
18 g-1 of' lost after awhile.
vI') 2 The question which_I would like to get 3 to, there are a number of utilities around the
~4 c o u n't r y that have various kinds of experience 5 perhaps alleged by the likes of what you have 6 gone through.
.7 What is your arrangement now to benefit 8 and learn the lessons of all the other 9 ex per ience s , are you doing it yourself, what 10 are you doing?
11 MR. WILLIAMS: We are using 12 INFO and doing it ourselves.
13 Pr im ar ily we are interested in B& W plant
.(G~3 14 and we have a rather large continuity of B& W 15 people here and they are the main source of 16 information for that.
17 Frankly, that is not today my maj or 18 problem.
19 MR. MICHELSON: I just 20 wonder what mechanism you set up to learn your 21 lessons quickly.
22 MR. WILLIAMS: The mechanism 23 is Mr. John Pierson and his group of technical 1
24 people from B& W, the problems with the
(~)g e 1 25 auxiliary feedpumps, in our research we Ceforotti, Rennillo apenhowns w e _
19 l' determined what other plants i.e d similar
()
~
2 problems and what actions they took v
3 MR. MICHELSON: Let me ask 4 it a little differently, maybe you can tell us S- what they are doing.
6 For instance, most of these events are 7 reported as licensee events and go th ro ug h a 8 standard formalization, do you receive each and 9 every one of them for possible applicability?
10 MR. WILLIAMS: Since I got 11 here July 19, I spent much time reviewing, we 12 received those, there is no question about that.
(~T 13 MR. MICHELSON: Most people e v) 14 have always received them, when it comes to the 15 Event, they say, didn't you realize this 16 happened at thus and so, do you.get LERS?
17 They get them but don' t look at them carefully, 18 I'm asking you do you have any organized 19 process by which you are looking at them 20 carefully?
21 MR. WILLIAMS: Today, I can 22 assure you that I have an org ani za tion in place.
23 After I get this June 9th Event behind me rm 24 and get my organization in place and get my
(_)
25 people in place, we will use it.
Ceforotti, Rennillo Am
& Matthews _courif. pore.r. __ _ JJr_____
, , . , , ~ - . . ~ . . .. .- . . ;...-. .--u..-. .-..w- .--
20 1 I know exactly what you are talking about, n
(,)' 2- most of the things are not read and acted on, 3 they don't get to the proper level.
4 MR. MICHELSON: =Is there 5 somewhere in the org ani za tion that you consider 6 human factor problems, generalized problems of 7 human error, maintenance error, to what ex ten t 8 are you f o rm a li z i ng if at all on the fact of 9 the human factor?
10 MR. WILLIAMS: We formalize 11 the human factors problem, pr im a r il y , I think 12 centered here around your activity and control, 13 in your control room con f ig ur a tion .
f~s) s.
14 MR. MICHELSON: You don' t 15 have any human factors expert in yo u r 16 org ani za tion?
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Not yet.
18 MR. MICHELSON: Is there one 19 planned?
20 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
21 MR. MICHELSON: Not shown on 22 the level. Do we have one in engineering now?
23 MR. QUENNOZ: We have a 24 person who in that capacity and we are looking
(']
u 25 for a person that has the credentials.
Ceforotti, Rennillo i . S Matthmn wa amm -_ __ . _ _ -
, 21
-r -
1- We.do, am o ng the ' B& W, have a transient
._l,8) 2E' a s s e s sm en t Cpr og r am , requires detailed events i
ss 3 that are o f -i n t e r e s t' to us. That is a fairly y
,[ f 4 aggressive program and'we have a person y ,
5 dedicated to itcfull t im e ,
6 )g MR. REMICK: When people 7 speak from-the' floor, please identify yourself.
ST 8 MR. WILLIAMS: If I can, I'd 9 like}o proceed, a lot of these questions are 10 <
going to be. answered in here.
11 MR. REMICK: Mr. Wylie, d id x
12 you,have-a chance to ask your questions that I
('}
13 cut you off earlier?
! v ,
14 MR. WYLIE: My question had 15 to do with where the analysis and investigation
-Lp. 16 from symptomatic basis would be done.
. 4
' df 17 Is that under the safety and licensing N* 1u 18 group or would that be under, I belie 5h Mr.
St C i
19 John Wood was identified as the man in 20 inv es t ig a t i on , is that a permanent a s s ig nm en t? ,
21 MR. WILLIAMS: No, but that 22 analysis will be done under the auspices of 23 safety and license, done by engineering, Mr.
( 24 Steve Quennoz. [
%.)] '
+ 25 ' MR. QUENN0Z: One area which h
Ceforotti, Rennillo l
& Matthews __ couri_R.por,.rs_ _ (d, b ______ __j
22 1 next year we are making a maj or effort to get 2
j 2 ahold of the design basis of the plant that it 3 now resides in.
4 Architect, eng inee r , I think that we will l 5 be doing the, as I understand, kind of things 6 that you would want to see, rev iewi ng the 7 analysis and basis that went into this plant 8 and that effort.
9 We will uncover items of concern or go on 10 a learning experience where we are looking at 11 things to fill that expertise in-house.
12 We may, during that effort, find a number 13 of problams and tha t ' s the type of third part a.
14 looking that you need.
15 MR. WYLIE: There would be a 16 group identified and charged with that 17 responsibility?
18 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
19 MR. REMICK: Mr. Williams, 20 if we could proceed.
21 MR. WILLIAMS: Bill O'Connor.
22 MR. O'CONNOR: My n am e is 23 Bill O'Connor, I'm an assistant plant manag er
~
- 24 for operations, j
25 I have several slides to go over.
Ceforotti, Rennillo ^-
& Matthews coun Resenm C,,Ubd
23 ;
1 The first area, shift technical advisor, 2 prior to June 9th they were on a shift schedule )
3 of a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> duty day, one person had the duty 4 of shift technical advisor for an entire day, 5 which meant they did have sleeping a r r a ng emen ts ,
6 but they could be awakened and brought to the 7 control room, they had to be there within ten 8 minutes, which d id occur on June 9th.
9 We have chang ed our sc hed ule to a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 10 shift rotation, 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, one 8 to 8 and the 11 other 8 to 8.
12 The STA office is within the protective 13 area and the new office is a minute or so from a
14 the control room primarily working out of the 15 shift supervisor's area.
16 Once we have the entire new org an i za t ion ,
17 a shift supervisor, two assistants, and a shift 18 technical advisor, so there will be four once 19 we are fully manned.
20 MR. WARD: Why so many?
21 MR. WILLIAMS: You ca n' t 22 train eno ug h people, the more senior licensees 23 you have around, the more talent it adds to the
,r3 24 organization and engineers can rotate into the a
25 STA organization.
Cefaratti, Rennillo
& MattheWS Court Reporters
24 1 As I said, this was already in the plans 7'S
!, ) 2 before the June 9th Event, to license the shift 3 technical advisor.
4 In the area of em e r g e n c y and abnormal 5 procedures the SRO control room panel area, ,
6 directing actions of the RO once EP 1202.01 is 7 implemented, he is required to be in the 8 control room a t' all times during these Ev en ts ,
9 during June 9th, the assistant shift supervisor 10 left the control room to go down to the 11 s t a r t-up feedpump as we talked about on our ,
12 tour, the shift supervisor had momentarily gone
/~ N.
(,,) 13 to the office to get-extra keyrings to have 14 with them-to get to various locked valves, for 15 a minute or so there was no SRO in the actual 16 panel area that we discussed.
17 We are making that a requirement.
18 Once we enter EP 1202.01, the SRO must 19 remain in the control room panel area directing 20 actions of the RO once EP 1202.01 is 21 implemented.
22 Review all emergency / abnormal 23 procedures to assure that the control room i 24 instrumentation is adequate when unusual
("J L
25 actions are required.
Cefaratti, Rennillo
& Manhows cour, a.onri.n '
25 1 In other words, when it is time to go to 2 make up cooling that the criteria are specific, 3 that we are not asking them to do s om e t h i ng 4 that he cannot read or can't get immediately 5 available to him in the control room.
6 Review all the em e r g e nc y/ a b n o rm a l 7 procedures to assure that the control room 8 instrumentation is adequate to support the 9 decision statements requiring operator action.
10 You cannot ask a man to do something at 11 600 degrees if the meter is not calibrated.
12 We are walking through every emergency i 13 procedure to insure that every time we tell 14 them at such and such a point do this, 15 that the meter will support that decision.
16 We are providing manual pressure 17 temperature plotting capability on the operator 18 console and if it is not functioning that the 19 operator can manually block that temperature 20 and for the longer term events this is vital, 21 the short term events it is not necessary.
22 It is im po r t a n t to know where the plant 23 has been and where it is going.
e1 24 Specifically for EP 1202.01, will be
,}
25 modified to provide definitive criteria for Ceforatti, Rennillo - ' -
& MattheWS Court Reporters
26 1 makeup and HPI cooling, g
() 2 In the new procedure with the analysis 3 that B&W and engineering performed for us we 4 have found that we can give them a single 5 criteria of-600 degrees on the safety grade hot 6 leg temperature accelerates which is very easy 7 to observe in the control room.
8 We are going to correct the SFRCS 9 response verification. It changes 10 significantly, tabs corrected in the pr oced ure .
11- - There was a few minor errors in this tab 12 on the n ig ht of the June 9th Event but it did
(~ 13 not cause any problems for the operators, but s
14 there was a few minor errors, the r e a l ig nm e n t 15 of the auxiliary feedwater mini-recirculation 16 flowpath.
17 It will be realig ned within a f ew minutes 18 after the auxiliary feedwater pump starts to 19 allow minimum recirculation flowpath.
-20 The MSIV, both close within several 21 seconds of the reactor trip.
22 When the operator was going through his 23 supplementary action and when it was determined r%- 24 that the main steam isolation valve was closed U
25 and verified a little earlier in the procedure, Cefaratti, Rennillo q
& Matthews cour, a.nor,.r. [(d
( ,, ,.,
27 1 moving up to one of the initial supplementaries,
( ) 2 immediate action was taken to verify MSIV, new 3 motors driven feedwater pump operation 4 obviously has to go in in the procedure, the 5 new pump operation is different than the old 6 one, this pump explicitly is outlined and its 7 operation is put into the emergency procedure.
8 The criteria for AFW suction transfer 9 from the service water to the CST, condensate 10 storage tank.
11 If this transfer occurs, we need specific 12 criteria when it is appropriate to transfer 13 back to the condensate.
w.j' 14 Under the training and adm ini s t r a t ive ,
15 the first item, increased emphasis by 16 management and training on adherence to 17 procedures.
18 We do not feel we had significant 19 problems on the operators to adhering to 20 procedure, we are just reenforcing when the 21 emergency procedures are developed by the 22 operations department and technical e'ng i n e e r i ng 23 d ep a r tm e n t , we are sitting in a room and 24 thinking of all the what ifs and when it is 25 appropriate to do this particular action, why a Ceforotti, Rennillo
& Matthews coun Reponen g/
28 1 certain time frame mig ht be im po r t a n t , why 600
) 2 or 12 hundred or 2 hundred pounds is important, 3 the operators should not be interpreting these 4 items in the control room d ur ing the Event.
5 Once this criteria is established, they 6 have to follow that procedure to the letter of 7 the law especially the emergency procedures.
8 Next is pre-startup training of all the 9 operators on hig h priority infrequent operator 10 actions, (e.g. AFWT trip throttle v alv e) .
11 The operator that was performing that 12 function never operated it in that particular
! j 13 mode.
14 One thing we are doing for all the 15 operators on this specific item is we are 16 requiring that every operator actually start 17 that auxiliary feedwater pump with live steam 18 pressure.
19 Another item that has come out of the 20 i nv e s t ig a t i o n is the em e rg e nc y diesel generator, 21 it has a limit switch and the limit switch can 22 be reset if the arm is pulled down properly.
23 We have a tag there that has been there
( ') 24 for years, however, we want to insure the 25 operators are all aware.
Cefaratti, Rennillo - -
8 Matthews ceum Renows C.'.lJl fd
29 1 There are several others that we have i
/")
q 2 uncovered in our investigation.
3 Manual versus automatic safety system 4 actuation.
5 Operating philosophy changes requiring 6 the reactor operator to inform the senior 7 reactor operator of intent to manually actuate 8 the system.
9 He will be required to tell the senior 10 reactor operator, I'm going to the. operator on 11 low level prior to taking that action. -
12 In other words, the SRO must concur with j
,( 13 the action.
14 There are t im e s where it is required to I 15 manually where you cannot sit back and let it 16 do it automatically, situations such as loss of 17 instrument air in the plant.
18 It can be actuated prior to losing air, 19 this is one ex am p le where the operator is 20 required to take a manual before letting 21 automatic do it. !
22 MR. EBERSOLE: Is the 23 inversion of that also going to be examined?
24 You will repeat if you see it was leading you 25 down the wrong path?
Cefaratti, Rennillo d"
& Matthews court Reporters
30 1 MR. O'CONNOR: The operators
() 2 based on the particular events going on, always 3 have their operational judgment, if a safety
( 4 system is not doing what it is supposed to, j l
5 don' t stand there --
6 MR. EBERSOLE: Have you 7 examined bypasses at all? l l
8 MR. DEAGAZIO: Currently in 9 place are all the areas that we know we will 10 have to do as part of our review of the 11 emergency procedures, we have uncovered a 12 couple other places, depending on the changes
,s (w,) 13 to the steam feedwater rupture control system, j 14 but, yes, we are looking at that specifically.
15 In the June 9th Ev e n t , the operator knew 16 that he lost steam by the main steam isolation 17 valves going shut.
18 What was going through his mind on the 19 n ig h t of June 9th was that I had a SFRCS 20 actuation and the system did not respond the 21 way it was supposed to, it partially did, the 22 main steam isolation valves and nothing else 23 happened.
(~') 24 In his mind the steam feedwater rupture v
25 control system was not functioning properly and Cefaratti, Rennillo
__3_Matthews cor accone , Ii
. . . o--.. . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31 1 he was putting it in the condition it was
' _) 2 supposed to be put.
3 In other words, in his mind the feedwater 4 was gone, the SRO had actuated and the main 5 steam isolations were shut.
6 MR. WARD: So, he wa s n' t 7 really anticipating an automatic action?
8 MR. O'CONNOR: They knew he 9 had lost feedwater, they didn't understand why 10 the SRO had shut it down or closed it. He was 11 attempting to put the system in line up.
12 He was doing what he felt was correct l ,I 13 based on the condition in the control room.
w./
It 14 wa s n' t that he was anticipating boiling, he had 15 a safety system actuation that was not correct.
16 MR. QUENNOZ: I think the 17 answer to that question, Mr. Ward, would be a 18 manual versus operator initiated action.
19 Bill is trying to describe too many 20 situations to legislate such a pat answer to 21 that.
22 MR. O'CONNOR: Whenever you 23 are going to do this to the steam f eed wa te r t'~'N 24 rupture or safety feature actuation or reactor
-/
25 protective, all the different safety systems, I Ceforotti, Rennillo - ' -
8 Matthews cou" Reconen . C..ifllll
g .. w.a a. . . .: : .= - - . x. . . - . .. . ~ . - - . . . - . . . . - ..-..:----. ,
32 1 cannot leg isla te -in my emergency system, this
) 2 time do it this way or that, there are too many 3 circumstances that come into play that you have i 4 to make that decision on the spot.
5 MR. WARD: Maybe that is so, 6 but you are. putting a big load on the senior 7 reactor operator.
8 MR. O'CONNOR: They always 9 have a big load, he is the shift supervisor.
10 MR. WARD: I m ig ht suggest 11 that the engineers a nal y ze in the quiet of 12~ their offices and laboratories through the
()
13 years can think out more of those things than 14- you mig ht expect the SRO to think of.
15 MR. EBERSOLE: In that 16 connection, it is my understanding that the 17 operator.second to the organization in general 18 are more or less committed to operate what they 19 are g iv en and have very little credit in trying 20 the des ig n itself, they must run it, it is a 21 privilege to run something as difficult to run.
22 MR. WESSMAN: That was a lot 23 of questions and kind of overview.
() 24 I know that the decay removal task force 25 we have in place also includes operation, is Cefaratti, Rennillo 4
& Matthews Coun Reconen Emi
- . . . . _ - . m . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _. _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ . , .
A 33 1 looking into alternative PORV-paths and methods 7 s, .
( ,) 2 to take, what if the boards d idn' t work and if 3 a ux ilia r y feedpump and motor driven f e ed pum p ,
4 a n a l'y z i ng down?
5 MR. WILLIAMS: Not only that 6 committee, this has operational representation, 7 but to rev iew the renior review committee made 8 up of the best engineers I can get, review them 9 to work, 31 additional systems has operational 10 representation on it.
11 What you br o ug h t up is one reason I put a 12 plant manager as head of engineering, I intend
() 13 to drive engineering to the point there is 14 dirty hand type.through the operators problems.
-15 We are here to support the plant not vice
.16 versa. That's the whole intent of my 17 reorganization and the wa y I'm running things.
18- MR. O'CONNOR: If they try 19 and put something on the control panel, I can 20 go thumbs down and not go in.
21 MR. EBERSOLE: The fact that 22 you are meeting r eg ula t or y requirements, I 23 think you comply with them.
f'd u
( 24 MR. REMICK: Let's go to the 25 next one.
Cefaratti, Rennillo d
& Matthews cour, n.oor,.rs b
. . . ... . ~ .- . . . . . , . ~ . . . . . .
- ~ . . - - -- . . - . . . - - . - . . . ~ .
34 1 MR. O'CONNOR: Before the 7
() 2 start-up training for licensed operators and 3 also nonlicensed on loss of feedwater analysis 4 that is going on by the engineering department, 5 the operators will know not only this is what 6 to do in case of the loss of feedwater, but 7 this is why you do it, go th roug h the events, 8- why we came up with 600 degrees, control logic 9 and operation of AF 599/608. Also SFRCS 10 changes and actuations, control of steam header 11 pressure following the reactor trip.
12 S im ul a t o r training starting 8-26-85,
[Ji 13 included-SFRC mock-up-and manual PT plotting, 14 (assumes SPDS.) -
15 When we did our control room design, we 16 built a few scale mock-ups of the control room, 17 exact models of the control room with pictures 18 magnetically, we took them down and put them on 19 the pansls and made the operators walk around, 20 we put an alarm panel up that looked like the 21 control room.
22 They got used to the SRO trip alarm and 23 looked at the actual buttons in the back, did
(~) 24 use that, ev e n though the buttons don't lig ht
-v 25 up and flash, they got used to walking around Cefaratti, Rennillo a l & Matthews co m enonem . U.
35 3 1 and looking at the panel to where the actual j 2 switches were.
3 MR. O'CONNOR: Steve Smith 4 is our assistant plant manager maintenance.
5, MR. MICHELSON: I hav e 6 several questions that I was patient enough to 7 wait until you were finished.
8 Most of them are very brief.
9 Are all of your operating procedures now 10 based on --
11 MR. O'CONNOR: Our em erg enc y 12 operating procedures are the sy s t em s based
) 13 precedures and we have been on that th ro ug h 14 this cycle.
15 MR. MICHELSON: All of them 16 were a to go basis.
17 MR. DEAGAZIO: Yes.
18 MR. MICHELSON: You said 19 something about loss of air and you would like 20 to get things to happen before you lost the air.
21 Isn't your design fail safe on loss of 22 air?
23 MR. O'CONNOR: The design
(^'; 24 for the safety system is fail safe on loss of t/
25 air but can g iv e you overfilling.
Ceforotti, Rennillo 2-8 Matthewn Ceurt Reoorters
36 1 MR. MICHELSON: . Are you
~
4/)-,
2 saying on loss of air you may have a steam w/
3 generator overfill?
'4 MR. O'CONNOR: We have an 5 automatic closer to the containment which stops 6 the main feedwater valve.
7 No, they wo n' t overfill.
8 MR. MICHELSON: Don't you 9 have to respond to lose of instrument air?
10 MR. O'CONNOR: The safety 11 systems will eventually take over.
12 In the meantime, it may have cooled to
(^% 13 450 degrees.
w]
.14 MR. MICHELSON: The design 15 basis on loss of air unless you made other 15 provisions.
17 MR. O'CONNOR: Yes, we are
-18 tr ying to prevent a large transient on the 19 front ends that you have to recover from.
20 MR. MICHELSON: What is your
. I 211 present- status on requalification ex am in a t i o n l
. I 22 for your operators? I
.23 MR. O'CONNOR: What do you l
~
x 24 mean by status?
Ld 25 MR. MICHELSON: Had you had Cefaratti, Rennillo gdh po"=
WmWW s
37 1 the requalifications exam?
[) 2 MR. O'CONNOR: Yes.
g 3 MR. MICHELSON: How did you 4 make out?
5 MR. O'CONNOR: Two reactor 6 operators did not pass the exam, they went to a
-7 program 6 or 7 weeks and retook the exam and 8 now have the license.
9 MR. MICHELSON: Ev e r yb o d y 10 now passed?
11 MR. .O'CONNOR: Nes.
12 MR. REMICK: Who 13 administered the examination?
14 MR. O'CONNOR: We did.
15 MR. MICHELSON: Th a t ' s an 16 important qualification.
17 Now, one final question, on your 18 simulator you were having to use the then B& W 19 simulator present.
20 MR. DEAGAZIO: Yes.
21 MR. MICHELSON: Is n' t there 22 a sister B& W plant that looks a little more 23 than B& W simulator which really is not all that rS 24 good, isn' t there a better place to put your
-U
-25 people on program?
Cefaratti, Rennillo d
& Matthews cour, Reporters ,
1 38 l 1 MR. O'CONNOR: Arkansas has
. /~l-
% J-
- 2. a s im ul a t o r not like ours, Durk Power has a l i
3 similar s im ula tor .
4 MR. MICHELSON: How close is 5 the B& W s im ul a t o r ?
l 6 MR. O'CONNOR: It is l l
7- essentially laid out like ours.
8 In other words, the three front panels 9 and three back panels and everything is pretty 10 much - the same location, 11 Their valve numbers are a little 12 different and let down in the same place, the
~7"N 13 pressure in the same place, the diamond control G-14 panel is the same, turbine generator in the 15 same place, the biggest difference, the safety 16 feature package does the same thing, but looks 17 different.
18 As far as operating transient, they have 19 modeled our makeup h ig h pressure inj ec tion .
20 In other words, we have it would make up 21 pumps with the capacity of ours, B&W done a lot 22 of work to make their model like our plant even 23 through the switches.
g 24 MR. MICHELSON: What you are
- 25. saying, it is the closest thing available?
Cefaratti, Rennillo d
& Matthews cour, n.por,.r. ,,
_~..... . . ,
39
/
1 MR. O'CONNOR: I believe so.
) 2 MR. MICHELSON: How soon 3 before it is.possible to have a plant specific 4 s im ula t o r ?
- 5 MR. O'CONNOR: It is 6 scheduled to be here in 1988.
7 MR. MICHELSON: That's a 8 long time.
9 MR. DEAGAZIO: Takes three 10 years to get them from when you order them. -
11
- MR. EBERSOLE: Carl b r o ug h t 12 up the question of loss of air and he himself
/~T) 13 discovered a specific case where one must look
(~/
14 beyond the loss, but the mode of that loss, old 15 cosmic type question, in all the plant 16 parameters, you look not merely on the sudden 17 loss of their parameters in the neg ativ e 18 direction but also the extension of it h ig he r 19 than it should be and the fluctuating mode in 20 between.
21 MR. WESSMAN: Where it is 22 degrading.
23 MR. EBERSOLE: Ve ry. g eneric
'( 24 contents now.
25 MR. DEAGAZIO: We did a Cefaratti, Rennillo gh
& Matthews coun n.oon.rs U UUU
p,. . . . . . .
. . ~ - . . . . . . . . .
40 1 very, very ex tens iv e study for the i n s t r um e n t
.)
2 air system and came up with very detailed, we 3 went to every single valve in the plant, put in 4 exactly how it would fail, put in the procedure 5 which ones manually operated with the hand 6 wheel, which ones by turning the air off and 7 bleeding it down and operating it and how the 8 plant would respond to it and I think our loss 9 of instrument air procedure is very, very 10 detailed.
11 MR. EBERSOLE: If I have 12 regulator failure, what is the max possible DC
/
13 voltage that you can get out of charg ers?
14 MR. O'CONNOR: I can't tell 15 you off of the top of my head.
16 MR. REMICK: We have about a 17 little less than 55 minutes for the rest of the 18 licensee's presentation.
19 MR. SMITH: Good afternoon 20 gentlemen, my name is Steve Smith, I'm the 21 assistant plant manager for mainte"ance.
22 I'll discuss briefly the cha1ges that 23 have been im pl em e n t ed as part of the I
/ 24 maintenance im p r o v em e n t program, the changes 25 that occurred in organization and staffing, Ceforotti, Rennillo ^-
8 Matthews cenece-e , SfUU
41 1 l training adm in i s t r a t iv e and technical
) 2 procedures, preventative maintenance, spare 3 parts and material control, eng in ee r ing 4 interface and support, plant cleanliness and 5 material readiness, facilities.
6 The new maintenance organization has been 7 in place since the 19 of August, the 8 crganization chart was f o rm a ll y approved in 9 September.
10 All the positions that you see as second 11 level supervisory positions from the lead 12 . engineer, general foreman, superintendent up,
() 13 have been filled since the 19 of Aug ust .
\ /~
14 Some of the former slots are still being 15 filled by t em po r a r y upgrading of craft 16 personnel.
17 We are in the process r ig ht now of 18 pe rm a ne n tl y selecting and placing the 19 individuals into those positions.
20 The intent here is several fold.
21 The maintenance org an i za t ion consists of 22 epproximately 209 people, 40 some of those 25 people were not directly involved with
, m. 24 maintenance activities but are per f o rm ing f j 25 support activities such as system engineering Ceforatti, Rennillo - ' -
W . . ??' .""*"" NN
42 1 and planning and sc hed uling .
f) 2 The c ur rent maintenance orgsnization is p
3 199 people, ex clud ing myself, all those people 4 are directly involved in maintenance activities.
5 One of the reasons for two levels of 6 supervision within the organization and these 7 two levels,- the ones I'm talking about, is to 8 allow the superintendents and the general 9 foremen to become-part of the industrial f o r um 10 such as INFO, ASME and others and to play a 11 better role in the industry and see what the 12 industry is doing.
f"]
(s 13 The INFO has a very good program and were 14 here this week and we discussed this and we are 15 working out the schedule for som e of that 16 activity ourselves.
17 Additionally, I have increased the number 18 of foremen in the organization.
19 To give you an example in the INC yard 20 the old ratio of supervision to craft was 21 1 to 23, currently it is 1 to 7.
22 In the mechanical it was 1 to 21, 23 currently it is 1 to 10.
(* 24 Electrical, it was 1 to 23, now it is (s
25 1 to 6.
Cefaratti, Rennillo '-
l 8 Matthews coun R.ponm ( ((] __
43 1 There are several reasons for that, one 2 of them is improved supervision in the-field, (v!.
3 very seldom do the foremen ever get to leave 4 the shop to go observe maintenance in the field 5 but are tied down with paperwork and routine 6 personnel matters.
7 I require r ig ht now each foreman spend at 8 least 75 percent of the workday in the field, 9 one hour of that workday is dedicated to 10 inspections for cleaniness and material 11 readiness and areas I assigned to them.
12 In addition to that, each of the
() 13 maintenance personnel especially the general 14 foreman.and superintendent are required to 15 spend a minimum of one hour a day in the plant 16 and inspection check list that they fill out, 17 they have assigned areas and the areas are 18 rotated on a monthly basis.
19 We have currently built up some 14 to 15 20 hundred work items as a part of this material 21 readiness and inspection program they are 22 primary tied and funneled back into the 23 schedule for~ work off.
[ 24 I have about 40 mixed craft and clean 25 personnel that are a dedicated work force under Cefaratti, Rennillo > - -
_ _ . & Matthews _._cour, n.porier. .LMJ
44 1 the supervisory, he is moving that crew th r o ug h di 2 the plant and as a speci.11 cleaning ac t iv i ty ,
3 an ongoing cleaning activity to im pr ov e the 4 status of p l a n't cleanliness and material 5 readiness.
6 Once he left that area, that area is 7 evolved into an ongoing cleaning schedule.
8 Communications appear to be a problem in the 9 organization so I established schedule meeting 10 t im e s with our personnel, 11 I meet daily with the superintendents, 12 engineers and general foremen.
1 13 I meet with them at 7:30 in the morning, w/
14 once a week I meet with the foremen, once a 15 week I meet with the union stewards.
16 I meet monthly with each discipline and 17 quarterly with the d e p a r tm e n t as a whole, and, 18 of course, we discuss the plant administration 19 ongoing a c t iv i t i es .
20 To give you som e idea of the experience 21 level in the organization, from this level up, 22 there is 155 years of nuclear plant experience 23 anc within the 155 years experience, 60 years
(' ' 24 is commercial nuclear plant experience, not 25 just the D av i s-Be s se , but a variety of Cefaratti, Rennillo
& Matthews cour,neoor,rs (4 %4h.
. . . . . . = . ...
. . :.; ~ . . :. . - -.
.. - -- u.. . . . - . -
45 1 ba c kg r o und , all B& W, Westinghouse and l
~
l ( ~N i
(j 2 Babcox-Wilcox.
3 Organization and staffing, we have a 4~ contract organization on site, they have been 5 here three weeks.
6 They are currently staffing at the rate 7 of four people per week and we should end up i
8 with a staff of 30 procedure writers by the end 9 of November.
10- We will rewrite all the administrative 11 procedures that effect maintenance and c o n t r'o 1
~
12 of maintenance and upgrade our existing m
13
(/)-
technical procedures and urite new ones, 14 currently projecting about 100 administrative 15 and approximately 350 technical procedures.
16 I have revised the procedure generation 17 and review process to allow for certain things.
18 In the area of pr ev en t iv e maintenance, we 19 have dedicated persons working on the backlog 20 and new priorities are being developed and 21 assigned by central scheduling work.
22 Up until July of this year, the best we 2 3 ., could do was 64 percent per month. Currently, 24 this month we are 72 percent,
[v')
25 I shut down all safety related Cefaratti, Rennillo
& Matthews coun R.oon.rs $i
46 1 maintenance activ ities on site until I can j 2 assure myself that we were doing it correctly 3 as per our administrative controls.
4 I have yet to release all those 5 activities to start, they hav e to be able to 6 convince me the work activity is correct.
7 MR. REMICK: You indicated 8 64 percent of the PM work for this month, am I 9 to assume you are talking about September and 10 not October?
11 MR. SMITH: For September we 12 did 99 percent also.
4 i 13 MR. REMICK: You mention 64 14 percent, where did that come from, since this 15 is the 4 of October or did I misunderstand?
16 MR. SMITH: I misstated, to 17 date we have done 64 percent, we would have 18 been better except I stopped all the work last 19 week.
20 We measure the performance on a day to 21 day and weekly basis and get a monthly summary, 22 I get a weekly stack of how much we have done, 23 stack up.
( 24 Anyone within my organization or other v
25 organizations can formally request engineering Ceforotti, Rennillo
& Matthews cour Rewriers 'M
- - .... . ~ . .. . - . . . . . . . - . - . ..-.. ---- ---
47 1 provided assistance on anything that appears to Q- 2 be a problem.
3 You mentioned wh a t if you don' t think the 4 design is exactly r ig ht , this is a document 5 that gets an answer to that question. I 6 submitted to have that procedure approved by 7 September 30, formally approved on the 29 of 8 September.
9 Training will occur next week on that 10 procedure. We have tetually im pl em en ted , we 11 are using it r ig ht now, but we.need to train, 12 where the whole side on that, that document
() 13 request 'for engineering assistance, is numbered.
14 In fact in our work schedule the same way a 15 work for work request is factored, assigns a 16 sc hed ule to a specific eng inee r to resolve that 17 concern.
'8 In the area of facilities, we have 19 under way the construction of a new personnel
- 20. and shop facility that pr ov id es approximately 21 one hundred thousand square feet of maintenance 22 and office space occuppied in November of next 23 year, 1986, about four t im es as much space as
[~j sj 24 we have r ig ht now.
25 We'll nave some of the best equipment in Ceforatti, Rennillo Ami
& Matthews cour, Reporters Md
.- . . ~ . .. . -
48 1 the industry, we are very proud of the fact 2 that we pushed the schedule ahead, they have 3 been designing that building for about four 4 years, it had already been planned to be built, 5 as a matter of, fact the architecture was well 6 und er wa y when we got here, we just expedited 7 that.
8 Tha t ' s all I have.
9 MR. REMICK: What is the 10 status of maintenance training programs, 11 emergency and. electrical from the standpoint of 12 accreditation?
!g) v 13 MR. SMITH: Accreditation is 14 currently scheduled for the end of the year, 15 next year. I'm working eith the training 16 director to try and move that up to close to 17 mid year, June, July time frame as possible.
18 We have done a number of years, some innovative 19 to support the training currently going on.
20 We do have one training on the site, 21 maintenance discipline, I have an assigned 22 training foreman and he is responsible for the 23 personnel within the de sig n , that meeting those
/
^^ 24 and per f o rma nce is correct in the classrcom and
<j 25 that we are getting into the training program.
Ceforatti, Rennillo *-
& Matthews_com noonn CU.!UD
49 1 Additionally, in each discipline I formed s ?
. 2 a training council, the training council is 3 composed of craft personnel, the training 4 foreman and the training supervisor, tha t's the 5 actual structure supervisor for that discipline.
6 The purpose of the training counseling is 7 to r ev iew the current courses that are taug ht ,
8 make recommendations as to im pr ov i ng the 9 schedule they.can be taught on, they pr ovide 10 the informational course from the shop, source 11 as to new types of training that should be 12 obtained and when it is im p l em e n ted the minutes
/
- 13 from the meeting of training counsel come 14 directly to myself and the training director, 15 we formally respond to those minutes as to what 16- course of action we are going to take.
17 MR. REMICK: Is the 18 maintenance laboratory in existence now?
19 ,
MR. SMITH: Currently in the 20 process, should be done by the end of the year.
21 In addition, we have an expanded training
\
22 facility, total square footage 100,000 square 23 feet.
/~ 24 MR. WILLIAMS: The plan was LJ 25 well underway, the training laboratories are Cef aratti, Rennillo C
& Matthews cour, Reoorters .6
- u.----------------------------- _
- _ . . . . . _ . _ _ _ . . . .
50 1 being equipped now.
I 2 What we did, we started in July, started 3 sending systems we could spare to Commonwealth 4 Ed i so n and they opened their doors to us r ig ht 5 away.
6 We'll continue using that until our l
7 laboratories are in place and probably continue i 8 to use that to some degree until accreditation 9 takes place, hopefully in July or Aug us t of 10 next year.
11 MR. MICHELSON: You 12 mentioned that you are thinking of preparing
( 13 1500 technical procedures.
14 MR. SMITH: Not thinking of 15 it, sir, doing it.
16 MR. MICHELSON: Okay, same 17 thing.
18 Now, at what point do you so bind up your 19 organizational procedures that you can no 20 longer function?
l 21 You think 1500 is a reasonable number of 22 procedures, some utilities procedure themselves 23 to death.
(} 24 MR. SMITH: The number is 25 nebulous. We will have procedures where the Ceforotti, Rennillo '-
_ ___.._ & Matthews cour, pecor,e,s CfUUU
h?
51 1- work to be performed is beyond the skill of the
()
- J 2' craft level.
3 We have a very good definition of what 4 skilled craft is; '
5 In my personal position and the position 6 of nuclear admission, where technical guidance 3
7 i s ,.r e q u i r e d .th a t guidance will be provided in a 8 procedure that has been reviewed and approved 4
9 and assured to be technically adequate.
10 MR. WILLIAMS: What Steve 11 :got into this last week, purchased some 12 maintenance, reset the valves, people were 7% 13 using vendor manuals that had not been SRO V t >
N' 14 and later on notes had been written to them and 15 going by the notes, you cannot have that 16 undisciplined approach to this equipment, you 17 do need the procedure, you are quite r ig h t , our 18 job is to write those that are absolutely
> 19 required.
20 MR. MICHELSON: We have one 21 member that may come up call me stupid for
(
-22 writing so many procedures that will soon be 23 degrading your employees to robots.
/g 24 MR. SMITH: We are at the
- (.)
25 opposite;end of the stick, we require them to f
a Cefaratti, Rennillo
& Matthews cour, Reporiers ( )
52 W 1 assemble their own. technician.
E f^I 2 MR. MICHELSON: 1500 sounds gNJ 3 a little large.
4 MR. WILLIAMS: A hundred 5 administrative and 12 or 13, 4 electrical or 4 l 6 mechanical.
7 MR. MICHELSON: One other 8 question.
9 In various places around the country in 10 nuclear plants they are learning by their 11 maintenance experiences, in.many respects they 12 are learning very im p o r t a n t safety issues by
~/ s 13 the maintenance experience, what arrangements l-G p
14 are you going to have to learn this other than 15 by that some kind of grapevine process?
I l- 16 MR. SMITH: Possibly I don' t t
- 17. understand your question, with the system 18 engineering --
f
- 19. MR. MICHELSON: Let me be p
20 more specific then.
21 People, a lot of people have your same 22 auxiliary feedwater turbine, they had 23 difficulty and worked their way out that you
'r' 24 now suddenly experience, why d idn' t you know
'L]
25 about all of this from their experience and Cefaratti, Rennillo #n
& MattheWS Court Reporters
._ m m . _ _ -
. . . . . _ _ L ili . ..
53 1 their maintenance procedures?
) 2 MR. SMITH: We asked the 3 same question, previously, the engineering and 4 plant review of LER.
5 MR. MICHELSON: This is not 6 LERS any more.
7 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Smith 8 said, one of the reasons he laid his management 9 the vay he did, was so he would have the luxury 10 of sending those people to INFO and other 11 places to learn what is happening and bring it 12 back and make use of it.
13 MR. MICHELSON: INFO is 14 doing a fair job in some areas and, of course, 15 they send out their bulletins and I a s s um e you 16 receive them and appropriately analyze them, 17 that's what I'm trying to find out.
18 MP. SMITH: We do have a 19 formalized review process at the plant and 20 tracking program that requires when information 21 comes in that is considered of im po r ta nc e and 22 it should be investigated as to applicability 23 in the plant, it is tracked thro ug h a data base
, ; 24 system and the man is required to formally E-25 respond to it whether it applies to the plan or Ceforotti, Rennillo - " -
& Matthews coun Repene, C .!Ul)
54 1 not, those response for the more important are I; 2 also reviewed by the SRO's.
3 MR. MICHELSON: Do you think 4 one person is adequate for the screening 5 process?
6 MR. QUENNOZ: There are 7 several.
8 MR. MICHELSON: They work as 9 a body?
10 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
11 MR. MICHELSON: That 12 enforced to me more than one look at each
('N. 13 docu'ent m to make the decision.
14 MR. WILLIAMS: I d on' t know 15 precisely, they go to the head of the STA to 16 make sure they get reviewed.
17 MR. MICHELSON: The problem 18 is in the eyes of the beholder and you really 19 need more than one beholder.
20 MR. PETERS: The closecuts 21 are also reviewed by the licensing d ep a r tm en t 22 for appropriateness.
23 MR. MICHELSON: The closeout x 24 is, I'm worried about them being screened out r^N 25 too early.
Ceforatti, Rennillo - ' -
& MattheWS Court Reporters
55 1 MR. PETERS: Whether early
/)j I, 2 in the process or late in the process, that is 3 also reviewed.
4 MR. REMICK: Does that 5~ finish it?
6 MR. MICHELSON: Yes.
7 Can I ask Bill O'Connor a question.
8 I sort of would like to have your opinion 9 of how valuable you expect the STA to be for 10 you'in a shift activity, the sort of thing that 11 was just mentioned for the SRO --
12 MR. WILLIAMS: May I get 13 into that?
[w']
14 MR. MICHELSON: May I finish 15 my question? .
16 For example, in'the June incident the 17 shift supervisor was on the telephone to, I 18 guess the operations superintendent or Mr.
19 O'Connor, he was really getting his advice 20 there, under what c i r c um s t a nc e s would he be 21 able to g iv e better advice than this more 22 experienced and knowledgeable fellow on the 23 other end of the telephone conversation.
(~} 24 He was there, they had no feedwater, LJ 25 operators going to each of the places, it Ceforatti, Rennillo d 8 Matthews cour, Reporters bb
,.u ~ ; a . . .~ . .-.. . . . . . . . ~ - - .--. . . - . . . . . _ . . -
56
- 1. wa sn' t that I was giving him instructions over 7~N (j 2 the phone, he was letting me know we were in a 3 pretty serious Ev en t , I was touching base.
.4 If things turned for the worse that they 5 didn't recover, more of the management team was l l
6 on the way.
'7 STA was in the ~ control room doing the 8 assessment, they were starting auxiliary 9 feedwater and getting lined up for the cooling 10 and everything the procedure required them to 11 do.
12 MR. WARD: The NRC d idn' t em
')
t 13 require --
14 MR. WILLIAMS: He can't 15 answer that question.
16 In my mind STA's have never been used 17 properly in this business.
18 STA's are people that are just a little l 19 below Bill O'Connor's level of confidence and 20 oug ht to be the plant shift managers, the SRO 21 ought to report to them and in times of trouble 22 that's the guy that is really the expert on the 23 site. He takes over and the shift supervisor
'{} 24 backs him up.
25 It oug h t to be the personnel on the shift Cefaratti, Rennillo
_ . . . _ _ . & Matthmn wrrr.wrm
57 1 when the event happens that holds the critique,
-~ l I i 2 to get everything together and ascertain '
3 precisely what happened.
4 Tha t's one of the great failures of I 5 analyzing events, people get out for two or 6 three hours, they have lost the train of 7 thought of what happened.
8 There are lots of ways the guy ought to 9 be in, ought to report to the plant manager, 10 not him, that is where we are going with STA's 11 as t im e s marches on.
12 MR. WARD: There is going to
('~] 13 be a shift manager that will have the '
s -
14 capability of STA and be the real shift 15 leader?
16 MR. WILLIAMS: Rig ht , not 17 only shift leader, but manager.
18 MR. WARD: That conforms 19 with my pr ej ud ice of how it should be done.
20 We heard a' lot from other people in the 21 industry about how it is going to be too 22 difficult to get people to fill those shift 23 jobs.
(~; 24 MR. WILLIAMS: All you have L!
25 to do is pay up and work at making career paths Ceforotti, Rennillo - -
& MattheWS Court Reporters gg
.w. . . . _ . . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . - . -
58 1 for people.
2 MR. REMICK: We have a 3 little less than a half hour for the next two 4 presentations. l l
5 MR. WOOD: I am mechanical, 6 structural engineering manager and I am going 7 to speak today about the equipment and 8 specifically that which ruptured as a result of 9 the June 9th sequence of events.
10 I'll go very rapidly through these so we 11 can save some time for the last two speakers.
12 The first slide here represents a flow I')_
13 chart of basic process.
14 The first item I have is main f eed pum p 15 turbine.
16 What we found in our review process was 17 we had a failed circuit board capacitor in our 18 GE control system, this is a MD 20 system that 19 we installed just r ec e n tl y .
20 This capacitor was in a frequency to 21 voltage, which then told the. control system 22 that I have no speed, therefore, increase the 23 speed and I ended up tripping out on overspeed.
(l' 24 The corrective action, simply stated, N -
25 replace faulted board and also checking turbine Ceforatti, Rennillo 2-8 Matthews cow, nor, ors C.1[Ul.)
59 1 number 2, te sting some of the control circuits
-- (#3 2 also that we had prior problems with prior to L.)
3- 6-9 and these-are the only control systems of 4 that type in the plant.
5 Next concern, steam feedwater rupture 6 control-system, spuriously had an actuation 7 closed both main steam isolation valves and 8 isolated the steam to the main feedpump and cut
.9 off the primary force.
10 We found in our investigation that this 11 actuation was due to the pressure oscillating 12 which the SRO incorrectly-interprete'd as low rm '13 level and, the turbine trip causes that valve
'(_)
14 to close, causes a pressure oscillating back 15 into the secondary side, that oscillating, of
.16 course,1would have been with us from day one of 17 the' operating plant, however, again in the 84 18 releasing outage, we made a change to the level 19 pressure, we had some Ro s em o n t transmitters
~20 that we changed, the Rosemont moved less fl u i d b 21 in their actuation, therefore, the level became 22 more sensitive because the old transmitter 23 provided a snubbing action and the new 24 transmitters did not.
Ov
~25 MR. MICHELSON: Was that the Cefaratti, Rennillo d 6
& Mattitews cour, Reporters , ,
60 1 first -time that they tripped since you put the f(w ] -2 new i n s t r um en t s in?
-3 MR. WOOD: No, the first 4 time we had a full SRO trip as a result of the, 5 we had two indications early of a half SRO trip.
6 MR. MICHELSON: A previous
- 7. indication when you trip is you are getting 8 noise?
9 MR. WOOD: Th a t ' s true.
10 Auxiliary feedpump turbine tripped on overspeed 11 after the Event. '
12 It was a backup to the ' pr im a r y' so ur ce .
13 Here is what we have f o.u nd in our i nv e s t ig a t i o n
{}
14 at Davis-Besse and also reviewing information i
15 from other plants and discussions with turbine 16 manufacturing that the cause here is 17 condensation which forms long cool steam inlet 18 lines, normally set at ambient temperature and 19 actuate the system b ro ug h t up to a 500, 600 f
20 degree temperature. This condensation can 21 disrupt the turbine control.
22 In other words, to correct what we are 23 doing, keeping the line hot pressure raised 24 with steam, of course, reduced the water 25 formation also allows our steam traps to work i
Cefaratti, Rennillo d A MattheWS Court Reporters _
61 g
- l. correctly and we'll.be evaluating that.
2 MR. MICHELSON: How are you-
'(~}
3 keeping them hot?
i.
- 4 MR. WOOD
- We are putting r: 5 the steam emission valves into the auxiliary 6 feedpumps.and thus instead of having to
- - 7- transverse anywhere from one side 360 feet, the
'8 other side as-long as'650, if you include the l:
l 9 closeover, you only'have about ten feet of i 10 unheated steam pipe.
h 11 MR. EBERSOLE: Over.what 12 period.of time did this condition prevail and r
q^) 13 why .d idn' t you do something about it before you
-s-' ' '
14 had this Ev en t?
l 15 MR. WOOD: This condition 16- specifically during the transient that~we had, 17- we had because the operator pushed the wrong 18 two push-buttons, we had the steam generator
- 19 cross feeding the turbines., this was the only 20 time that we have lined up in that specific 21 al'ig nmen t al so the discharge valves went closed.
I 22 That was a situation different from any y .23 other transient that we have gone th r o ug h and L
- - 24 it is also the first time we have over sped the l ~.O ~
25 turbines here at Dav i s-Be s s e during a transit.
l
!. Ceforotti, Ronnillo d m ponen m,i
-.~ n . u . . .- .. . .. . .. . - . ... . .. . . - . . . . . - . . - . .
62 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Make one fX) v-2 correction, John.
3 MR. QUENNOZ: Steve, we had 4 made modifications to auxiliary f eed wa ter 5 system specifically the speed and f e e'd wa t e r
-6 rupture control system logg ing in an effort to 7 im pr o v e the reliability of the system.
8 At the end of 1984 what this d id was 9 allow both paths of steam to feed that 10 particular auxiliary feedwater pump and enhance 11 the probability that the pump would get a 12 source of more force.
fv-') 13 We found after we made that modification 14 that we were, we saw hangar danger, when we 15 identified that, we put the, logging .back to its 16 o r ig i nal form.
17 We had worked with the reg ion under 18 affirmatory action letter to further 19 inv es t ig a te the hangar danger that we found and 20 be sure-we found the root cause of the problem
-21 in addition to the d am ag e that happened.
22 MR. WILLIAMS: One other 23 thing, you said that was the first time we ever 24 done that co n f ig ur a ti on , correct me if I'm
('
25 wrong, back in the early test program we had an Ceforatti, Ronnillo %
& Mhown__%o nmarm__ JUU
- 63 1 active configuration not the correct parameters j)
w 2 because the lines had been heated r ig ht in the
- 3- initial test program.
-4 MR. WOOD: Initial test 5 program, I'm unaware that we had lined up, we 6' had one prior Event, one side was fed on the 7 crossover, however, the discharge valve was 8 open to the steam generator, unaware what the 9 condensation was at the time. There was some
!i 10 similar, maybe, events. Nothing that 11 duplicated what we saw, ag a in , it was ,the first
^
12 time we had oversped a turbine '
13 One of the.more significant things that (m)
%.s 14 we found during the Event, that's the next one, 15- this one has an auxiliary feedwater, you were i_ 16 down in the rooms and saw where the operators 17 experienced problems resetting these valves, 18 these displayed in addition to auxiliary 19 feedwater for a period of time, not significant i 20 at that point, what we found was the procedures 21 in the prior training were not exactly 22 sufficient.
23 As. Bill explained, we are going to em 24 provide improved hands on training so they L]
25 actually can get the feel of these valves under Ceforotti, Rennillo $
A Matthews couri m.por,.:.___
_ . __ _ _ d=k_ _
W
64 1 full steam conditions, they are also going to
.') '2 take.a look and have laid out'or going to be wj 3 installing some indicators so they don't have 4 to rely on the memory of the training, but 5 posted rig ht at the equipment som e information 6 that will g ive them help so they know if they 7 have the the thing latched up correctly.
8_ There will be indicators to help them 9 determine that, they don' t have to remember the 10 textbook on how everything fits together, also
- 11. enhancing communications between the , pump room 12 and control room. '
_('
'A 13 They only have one in the front room that 14 you were in and they could have put to good use 15 another one in the back. .
~
16 This has a generic implication of other 17 actions which had to be pe r f o rm ed locally under 18 the-heat of the battle and one such, emergency 19 diesel generator, a resetting of that trip 20 condition, that was looked at by the operator
-21 actions group.
r-
! 22 MR. REMICK: Are you going 23 to go through a number of these additional
(~), 24 slides? We are rapidly running out.
(_/
25 Maybe I should ask the subcommittee i
! Cefarotti, Rennillo d
& McMhews _ courg.nogen_ _ hm
65 1 certain ones of these additional ones they 2 would particularly like to hear about, your 3 slides.
4 MR. WOOD: Maybe if I can 5 just conclude with this one, I think this is an 6 im po r ta n t finding not only by Davis-Besse but 7 for the industry.
8 MR. REMICK: I ask the 9 subcommittee to look ahead.
10 MR. WOOD: This has to do 11 with the auxiliary f eed wa ter valves 599 and 608, 12 which failed to open on d em'a n d after closing 13 early. The operator pushed the wrong two push 14 buttons, howev er , after he. corrected his 15 mistake, a minute or so later it should h av e 16 come up automatically.
17 What we found the motor operators set, "
18 corked out prior to opening, when the operator 19 went down there and gave a hand assist using 20 the hand wheel, it then br o ug h t it open. The 21 findings again are that the l im i t switches and 22 the torque switches were not set up exactly 23 correct for motor operator valves, the l im i t 24 switch puts the torque switch into the circuit 25 on a selected opening of the valve. I think Ceforotti, Rennillo ' -
& Matthews cou- peoene s C.I.1!lll.)
66 1 our previous point where the limit switch r
( 2 activated the torque switch was in.a five to 3 ten percent open r ang e .
4 We are now going to 20 percent open range.
i 5 What-we have found, if we had used the 6 procedure which we had s ome help ~by another 7 consultant in developing there was not en o ug h 8 margin there that the torque still existed when 9 the torque switch was put in and, therefore,
-10 the motor of the torque out before going 11 t h ro ug h the de s ig n function.
,12 MR. REMICK: 'Do any of the 13 subcommittee members have questions on the
{~T_
,j . ,
14 following slides in your packet?
15 MR. MICHELSON: I have some, 16 I haven't had time to read them all het.
17 Let me start then, you indicated I 18 believe that you are moving the MS 106 to the 19 auxiliary feedwater department?
20 MR. WOOD: Actually the MS 21 106 stays where it is, that will then be an l
22 open valve and new valve added into the room.
23 MR. MICHELSON: What is 3
24 going to be your break detection and isolation?
\_)
25 MR. WOOD: Isolation will Cefaratti, Rennillo 4 t
"" ud
-.a.u . , :.: . . - ... r.;
- .. . = . . -
- w:; 2: - . . . .:=... ..==..a.=
c ,
67 1 still be the MS 106.
A)
.( -y 2 MR. MICHELSON: You 3 mentioned some valve measurements on various 4 valves, I assume you were issued some kind of 5 report?
6 MR. WOOD: That is correct.
7 MR. MICHELSON: Would it be 8 possible-for the committee to receive these
'9 reports, they area probably not very long?
10 MR. WOOD: I'm certain we 11 can provide information.
S 12 MR. ~MICHELSON: I'd like to I)
G 13 have them by next Tuesday at the latest for 14- Tuesday morning, would that be possible?
15 MR. PETERS: That would be i
16 possible.
17 MR. MICHELSON: The reason 18 is on Tuesday we discuss with the staif a 19 number of valve related questions and problems 20 of which Davis-Besse will be one of the 21 subjects of discussion.
22 MR. WARD: I'm not sure how 23 far you were going to go on these, I have a
{} 24 question on SPDC, safety parameter display 25 system.
Cefaratti, Rennillo d
- _ _ _ - - - - _ - - - - _ - . _ - - - - - _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - & MEhrn- h ame---
68 1 MR. LINGENFELTER: We have 2 no specific test spec r e q u i r em e n t on that.
3 I believ e it is 98 percent required in 4 the guides but there is no technical 5 specifications requirement for that yet.
6 MR. MICHELSON: I realize 7 that. Have you decided that you are going to 8 make some requirement?
9 MR. LINGENFELTER: No. ?s s a 10 goal for ourselves, yes.
11 MR. MICHELSON: You hav en' t 12 decided you are not going to o.perate if you
- 13 don't havA a SPDC available or going to limit 14 your operation.
15 MR. LINGENFELTER: We are 16 not going to have a restriction like that.
17 MR. MICHELS0'N: One more 18 question.
19 You have probably gone th r o ug h an 20 exercise in which you describe to the NRC what 21 you were doing in the unlikely event of loss of 22 all AC power, can you tell us b r i e fl y , is that 23 expected to play an im po r t a n t role?
'1 24 MR. MYERS: The loss of all l l
25 AC power that was described I believe several Ceforotti, Rennillo
& Matthews cour, Repenm
. E ..._.._;
69 1 years ago when a general bulletin was put out 2 in our case looks at the l im i t a t i on , I use the 3 auxiliary feedwater system l im i t a t i o n , however, 4 within two hours we would expect the 5 temperature to rise in that room to a point 6 where the old governor which you saw, I believe 7 one was still installed, would not be able to 8 guarantee to operate.
9 MR. REMICK: Staff offered 10 us 15 minutes of their time, the licensee now 11 has an additional 19 minutes.
12 MR. JAIN: I am Sushil Jain,
~'
- 13 senior nuclear engineer.
14 I'll be talking about a very complicated 15 and important activity.
16 After the June 9 th , 85 event most of the 17 systems that were involved in the June 9th 18 Event pertained to the removal of the heat, 19 namely the maintainence heat and, the start-up 20 feedpump, the SRO which is the initiating roll 21 system for the oscillating feedwater and 22 primary side.
23 The task force identified changes to
-. 24 prove the operation of the reliability as well 25 as the problems and complexity.
Ceforatti, Rennillo A
& Motthews cour, Reporters hl
.. u a - .. ... .. . . . . - . - . . .. - . - . - .. . . . - . . . - . . . . - . . ,
70 1 The task force enj oyed a very broad rn- . .
!. ) 2 membership consisting of several senior level 3 people as well as people with experience in 4 e ng i ne e r i ng as well as operations and licensing.
5 The overall goal in achieving or arriving 6 at these recommendations was to insure the 7 system reliability.
8 The methodology was deterministic as well 9 as preliminary scoping analysis.
10 Several alternatives or recommendations 11 for evaluation showed that they would work, to 12 make sure it does come on, and, finally, when
/^
(' s) 13 it does come on, you'make sure it continNes to 14 run.
15 To enhance eng in ee r ing efforts on the SRO 16 the manual actuation' buttons will be rearranged 17 and closer plates be provided to minimize any 18 situation 19 MR. EBERSOLE: Because of 20 the ex tr eme importance, I wonder if you can put 21 together your feelings about the availability 22 or lack of automatic suction pressure trip on 23 these critical feedpumps.
f')
v 24 MR. JAIN: We have a low, 25 low, suction pressure of the oscillating Ceforotti, Rennillo d R Manhmn wacermrm_. . .
71 1 feedpump turbines.
2 The task force has looked at possible 3 e l im i n a t i o n of that trip.
4 In the short term we are planning to add 5 a time delay so it does not cause the trip of 6 the turbine and the longer term because of the 7 technical specification we are proposing a 8 deletion.
9 MR. MICHELSON: Is it your 10 intent in improving the equipment or feed and 11 bleed to provide eno ug h relief capacity so that 12 the h ig h pressure inj ection pumps will be the 13 feed source or do you plan to sti11 rely on the 14 charging pumps?
15 MR. JAIN: The intent here 16 is to come out with the capability, there are 17 two ways you can look at it, one way is to 18 provide enough relief capabilities wherein you 19 can use your existing pumps. The other one is 20 to put in a single failure proof, inj ection 21 capability. The most attractive option here 22 appears to be more increasing the releasing 23 capability of the HPI system which minimizes 24 and impacts on the i nj ection capability. So
.)
25 that's what we are pr e s en tl y looking at.
Ceforotti, Rennillo
& Matthews cour, Reporteri p
d,
72 1 MR. MICHELSON: Increases 2 the releasing capability so you can use the HPI 3 system?
4 MR. JAIN: Correct.
5 MR. MICHELSON: Could I ask 6 you a question about the revision, SRO panel, 7 the term that is used there for actuating that 8 system is trip, and to most people, trip is 9 also used when you trip a turbine, it means it 10 goes down.
11 When you trip the reactor, that means it 12 is shut down.
13 I wonder in your human factors, control 14 and design review, the human factor specialist 15 objected to the use of the word trip as you use 16 it there?
17 MR. JAIN: The control room 18 design had not identified that as a deficiency, 19 most of us here that utilize the SRO trip --
20 MR. MICHELSON: I realize 21 that if ev er ybod y ag r eed you would get by, but 22 it wouldn't be c omm u n i c a t i ng very well, good 23 old words like open and close, start and stop
( ) 24 are better than, I think, than the words like, 25 isolate and secure and trip.
Ceforotti, Rennillo a un++hou,. e-.,c_,....
[# -
I (TI! O fil
- c. . . ._.4
- ~ ' ~ " ' ~
. - ~ . . .J . _ J ; . -- ~ . . _. . . ^;....._..~'
73 1 MR. LINGENFELTER: I was i mj 2 involved-in control-room design and that 3 particular item was discussed a number of times 4 with our human factors people.
5 The common terminology is the best thing 6 and the operators are very c om f o r ta ble with 7 that.
8 Unless there is a specific change in 9 their terminology we are going to try and 10 continue with the use of the type of words the 11 operator is used to seeing. -
12- MR. MICHELSON: How do you t
(b). 13 open the steam line to the big water turbine?
14 MR. JAIN: This is one of 15 the slides I think in the back of the handout..
16 The motor operator valve here and here would be 17 open and these are operator valves, the steam 18 emission valves are operator valves DC 19 solenoids.
20 MR. JAIN: Right, we are 21 adding a new valve to replace the function of 22- the MS106.
23 This one is air operator.
-() 24 MR. MICHELSON: That's not 25 the one you are adding.
Ceforotti, Rennillo
.___Rm~mcm m _l
[k JUU
74 1 MR. JAIN: Yes.
2 MR. MICHELSON: You are 3 adding a valve and have an air operator instead 4 of a motor operator.
5 MR. JAIN: The loss of air 6 to the valve will fail open.
7 MR. MICHELSON: I understand 8 now what you are doing, I d idn' t quite 9 understand your statement.
10 I'm sure you understand by moving, you 11 know there is a problem here, one way to solve 12 your problem of heating all the lines is to put
~
) 13 a bypass along the steam emission.
14 Instead you have chosen to pressurize in 15 an area containing many components, you 16 undoubtedly increase the risk, you have 17 increased the risk significantly I think, 18 although it still may be a low risk.
19 Now why did you think it was better to 20 fill out the lines with steam instead of 21 putting in a bypass valve?
22 MR. WILLIAMS: We are still 23 analyzing that, we are still looking at
'~
24 bypasses which you are talking.
25 MR. JAIN: We are evaluating Ceforotti, Rennillo ' -
8 Matthews cn- awnnn C.Ulll)
75 1 the hig h energy line break --
2 f*R. MICHELSON: My concern 3 was risk.
4 MR. WILLIAMS: We share and 5 are working definitively on it.
6 MR. MICHELSON: You said you 7 had a strainer in the auxiliary feedwater 8 straining, what type of condensate storage tank, 9 why do you use a strainer, is it that dirty?
10 MR. QUENNOZ: In a 11 n o n- s e i sm i c b u ild i ng in the event you would 12 have a seismic occurrence the or ig in al put 13 strainers in the auxiliary feedwater, to 14 prevent debris.
15 MR. MICHELSON: Interesting 16 concept as it pertains to a lot of lines, 17 upstream and downstream, if you are shaking 18 rust, it will be up and downstream as well.
19 MR. QUENNOZ: Downstream, it 20 is actually inside the auxiliary feedpump.
21 MR. MICHELSON: But still 22 rust.
23 It wa s n ' t clear why the water system was
(~'; 24 so dirty, that it needed straining.
25 You said that you are going to put a Ceforotti, Rennillo # -
2 Manhows en.,"n nnn., ((ifUll
m_._2.u.._... _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . . _ . . . . _ . _ _ .. _ _ . . . - _ _ _ . _ _
E 76 1 power supply in for the electric driven
, t, j 2 feedwater pump or going to use the diesel power 3 supply.
l- 4 MR. JAIN: The switch gear V
5 that was being used for the old start-up
- 6 feedpump, you know, essential pump would be l
7 used for the new pump.
~8 MR. MICHELSON: My question, 9 can you make that transfer?
10 MR. JAIN: You could do it 11 from the chrome room from that diesel.
12 MR. MICHELSON: Will be able (n) 13 to do it from the control room.
14 MR. JAIN: Yes.
15 MR. MICHELSON: One more 16 question. It was answered earlier, that is it.
17 MR. QUENNOZ: I male a 18 statement that main f eed pumps would trip on low 19 gear regular level. That was incorrect, they 20 would not, low gear would result in run back.
k-21 MR. REMICK: Is there any 22- way of abbrev ia ting your presentation, I'm f 23 getting concerned about hearing from the staff?
i 24 MR. LINGENFELTER: Jacque (V~)
25 Lingenfelter, system r ev ie w and restart test i
l- Ceforotti, Rennillo
! A/W TRrrm mm cnmem -_ _ fL _
. ..- ., . , . - - - . -..-...v.:.=..
77
, 1 program is aimed at addressing two of the maj or 5
.i] 2. generic issues raised d ur i ng the June 9 Event, 3 ,specifically the concern of improper
< maintenance root cause d e t e rm in a t i o n on other 5 systems t ha n, those that failed during the June 6 9th Event and secondly the adequacy of testing 7 sys tem s impo r tant to save plant operation to
't
- y. , ' 8 assure that they would' perform their intended 9 function.
t 10 The objectives,of our program then are'to 11 one, identify signidicant or recurring 12 maintenance and operations problems.
13 Two, identify testing required to assure
()'
14 that systems will perform their specified 15 functions. ,,
16 Three, to conduct a test program to 17 assure that the systems are fully functional.
18- We have two slides that you have in your 19 handout s h o wi m u c h 31 systems we are reviewing, 20 those systems which include, mostly safety l 21 related, some nonsafety related, also feel are 22 important to save. plant. operation, integrity 23 control, approach that we are taking in the 24 system review follows a little bit, it is KE
-v(^)
25 task, force work that was very successful, five Cefaratti, Rennillo gd
.. & Matthom - @an ctrucoa - -_ L.l _ _ _ _ _ _.
l 78 l
1 system review groups aligned to the five groups fj 2 of systems on those slides in those groups we 1
3 have Toledo Ed i s o n eng inee r ing personnel 1
4 responsible for the leads and they are 5 supported by a number of very hig hly qualified I
6 industry representatives with experience in 7 operation, maintenance, des ig n and test, total 8 of 50 people in the groups working on these 9 proj ect s .
10 The methodology we are using started in 11 the problem search with a selected document 12 review, using the documents that we have listed.
) 13 Those generated questions that the system 14 review people used to perform focused 15 interviewing of operation and maintenance 16 personnel, went to the station and talked to 17 the operators and maintenance mechanics, just 18 how people that use the system, what kind of 19 problems and got a lot of very valuable 20 information in terms of id e n t i f i ed concerns and 21 problems.
22 MR. MICHELSON: I'm a little 23 confused about what you are trying to do here, 24 could you clarify, what are you using this for 25 f.: this particular context.
Ceforotti, Rennillo - ' -
A Mctthews co- Recene, . ELLfUl.) .
_ , . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . .
.a. -
~ ,
r 79 1 MR. LINGENFELTER: Ag a in
(^/T 2 back up to the one generic concern, how do we 3 know that other systems, other than the ones 4 that were filed on June 9th do not have s im i l a r 5 problems that have occurred in the past, but 6 never fully rectified because of im pr o pe r 7 maintenance.
8 MR. MICHELSON: You are
/
9 hav ing .acother experience as to what other 10 people do.
11 MR. O'CONNOR: These are 12 primarily our own information, our o'w n LER's, '
13 DVR's, and looking historically at the system 14 information to find out where we mig ht have 15 missed something that we should have caug ht.
- 16 MR. MICHELSON: Okay, I 17 understand.
18 MR. WESSMAN: Coming out of 19 the interviews then, the group would have had 20 lists of problems that require some form of 21 resolution.
22 Phose range in sig ni ficance and are 23 evaluated against the very specific set of r 24 criteria to de te rm ine those that need to be
. k_)3 25 emphasized on short term and those we worry Ceforatti, Rennillo
& _ Matthews couri R poriers (d ) _______
80 1 about after start-up.
j 2 The groups then prepare s ugg e s t iv e 3 corrective actions and the entire effort is 4 reviewed in the report format by a independent 5 process rev iew g r oup , that group is composed of 6 some very h ig hl y experienced people from 7 outside the industry also Toledo Ed i s o n 8 eng ineer ing and operations personnel and going 9 th r o ug h a very ex hau s t iv e rev ie w of what the l 10 lab performed.
f 11 The test program, the second phase, ag ain ,
12 to address testing and again to assure that our l 13
[ f systems are operational prior to restart, each j
( 14 group will review the system, each of those l
15 functions have appropriate tests by the 16 existing test program, tnat through 17 surveillance, periodic tests, PM's, initial l 18 s t a r t- up test program whatever just to assure 19 ourselves that there are no functions that we 20 haven't missed in testing, identified, approach 21 test outlines developed. Ag a in the independent 22 process system review group will provide an 23 oversig ht and im pr ov e those test outlines, they
- 24 will be pretty much in control of the overall 25 scope of the restart test program.
Ceforotti, Rennillo '-
Mnfthews ccan snen Elillfil
81 1 As appropriate new or revised test will
) 2 he developed, approved or conducted under the 3 direction of a joint test group.
4 It is a separate organization that has a 5 lot of station personnel and people experienced 6 in test programs, in accordance with existing 7 station procedure test programs and finally the 8 result of that, of the testing program will be 9 reviewed throug h the normal, by the normal 10 organizations including the station review 1
11 boards and plant ma nag er and also the system '
12 review group and independent' review, they will
, 13 deal with any problems that we find.
j sJ
! 14 MR. REMICK: Thank you.
l l
15 MR. MICHELSON: You refer to I 16 two review groups and system r ev ie w and an 17 independent rev iew group, tell me a little more i
18 or d id I miss i t? Who is on this, where did it i
19 come from? !
20 MR. LINGENFELTER: System 21 review groups themselves c om pr i s e the 50 some
~ 22 i nd iv id ual s broken into five separate groups, 23 again those are Toledo Edison engineering
(~y 24 personnel and entry representatives.
%_)
25 For each of the systems we have one Ceforatti, Rennillo '-
& MattheWS Court Reporters
82 1 Toledo Ed i so n personnel.
, ; 2 MR. MICHELSON: Each have v
3 one system.
4 MR. LINGENFELTER: Each of 5 the 31 systems, take a look in the handout, it 6 is broken into five groups.
7 MR. MICHELSON: Do you have 8 a group of five people for each of these?
9 MR. LINGENFELTER: No f iv e 10 groups corresponding with these people.
11 MR. WILLIAMS: Anywhere from 12 six to twelve people each, those are the system 13 review groups, one Toledo Edison person and a
{
14 consultant type responsible for the preparation 15 of each of these reports and as groups together 16 they also reexamine their own f ind ing s .
17 There is a second group, the independent 18 system review group is listed in the slides 19 that is a much more experienced area of 20 ind iv id ual s and they pr ov id e an additional 21 ove r s ig ht and continuity between the reviews.
22 MR. MICHELSON: All this is 23 going to be done in what time frame?
,e~^ 24 MR. LINGENFELTER: Prior to L)-
25 restart.
Cefaratti, Rennillo 4-
& Matthews cour, Reporter. QLQ
83 1 MR. MICHELSOK: These' are
~
, 2 churning r ig ht now?
3 MR. LINGENFELTER: Very much 4 so.
5 MR. MICHELSON: Reports will l
6 be written on each system?
l 7 MR. LINGENFELTER: Yes.
8 MR. MICHELSON: Any of them 9 out ye t? I'd like to see typically what you 1
10 are doing.
11 MR. LINGENFELTER: They are 12 not always way out, halfway through the process I ; 13 in many case, most cases, we do have quite a i K.J 14 bit of paper out we can show you.
J l
15 MR. MICHELSON: Let me ask, 16 are there any systems that are s ome wha t of a '
17 counterpart of this system where there were 18 a rg um en t s that existed that for one reason or 19 another did not cause any improvement such as 20 the edition?
21 Do you have any other contemplated P
22 changes or design or addition to the plant j 23 which awaits a crisis to be carried out?
r~S 24 MR. WILLIAMS: I think not, t !
v 25 but that will be uncovered, that's one of the Cefaratti, Rennillo
& Matthews cour, n.noriers ({6
84 1 things they will be looking for.
,' 2 MR. EBERSOLE: By and large 3 we are crisis oriented unfortunately.
4 MR. WILLIAMS: Valuable 5 sources of information, sit down after look at 6 d oc um e n t a t i on , go down and focus interview with 7 the maintenance operator and go down and ask 8 them, that type of thing I think would be 9 uncovered.
10 MR. EBERSOLE: I would like 11 to see the operating people by and large be a 12 credit of the design.
, 13 MR. LINGENFELTER: I don' t v
14 think that's the case here formally, we never 15 had trouble getting opinions, we had trouble 16 effectuating those things.
17 MR. MYERS: One item to 18 bring up, the third pump was committed to this 19 pump as being installed early and it was 20 already planned to be installed.
21 MR. EBERSOLE: One aspect of 22 that is how long does it take to get thing s 23 done.
(~') 24 MR. REMICK: We'll take a 25 ten minute break.
Cefaratti, Rennillo >-
8 Matthews co- eenonem ,C M
I 85 i 1 (Short recess.)
I ; 2 MR. REMICK: We'll proceed s.]
3 and turn it over to Mr. Stolz for the NRC staff.
4 MR. STOLZ: Good afternoon, 5 my name is John Stolz and we have the members 6 of the staff from NRC from the region to assist 7 the committee in answering some questions they 8 may have regarding status of our r ev i e w .
l 9 This afternoon, basically we want to 10 cover two things, the status of the ongoing 11 review, which has not been going on very long 12 and also the status of generic issues that f" ) 13 arrived primarily from the June 9th Ev en t and v
14 other things that the staff thought about.
15 First, let me g iv e a little history of 16 how we got here.
t 17 Following the June 9th Ev en t , the region 18 issued a confirmatory action letter on June 10, 19 subsequent to that, NUREG 1154 was issued by 20 the fact finding team and we issued A 5 0.54 ( f) 21 to the licensee principally derived from the 22 1154, plus additional items that the staff 23 thoug ht about.
24 on September 12 the licensee responded to 25 5 0.54 ( f) and Mr. DeAgazio will be presenting Cefarotti, Rennillo '-
& Matthews cour, m urier.
[iW
- _w. - .- . . . . . . .;. '..w..a. ..
' ~~
^
86 L
1 the status of the staff review in accordancea (sh _. 2 with essentially the 5 0. 54 ( f) that we sent out.
3 Subsequent to that, Dick Wessman will be 4 talking about the generic. issues under 5 evaluation and,-let me give you a r o ug h idea of 6 where we are on the schedule, we expect to get 7 the first input from the staffs review in about 8 two weeks.
9 We are running in parallel with the 10 licensee on a few issues.
11 We think possibly the pacing issuing is i
- 12. the testing program, the licensee is in contact 1 t'.
i- 13 with the staff, the staff and reg ula r phone, 14 r eg i on staff and our staff form a team, they 15 plan to join with the licensee in coming up -
16 with r ev ie ws in the licensee's test program.
17 We think that's the pace of the issue in terms
~18 of time.
'19 I would guess that it will be probably 20 toward the end of November before the staff
.21 will be ready to issue a safety evaluation that 22 would have to go through manag ement review and-23' then be subsequently issued.
(j- 24) I assume since the ACRS is being involved .
25 with the review the commission wants also to
. . _ _ _ , ~ . _ - _ . 1 = r . --- - ._ ,-.-
. . . . . . . . . . = . . .
1 i
87 1 conduct a review that sometime subsequent to f}
u-.
2 the issues of the SER, we have to ag ain mee t 3 with you folks, I'm speculating on that.
4 MR. EBERSOLE: The fourth 5 bar under that first bulletin, conducted that 6 underlying cause of events, et cetera, was lack 7 of care and maintenance, do you really believe 8 that?
9 MR. STOLZ: I think if you 10 use the word maintenance, that certainly was 11 maintenance but also included some of the 12 engineering that went back of it.
'(, 13 MR. EBERSOLE: You don' t say 14 that, don't say anything about the lack of 15 d iv e r s i ty or anything else like that. I r eg ard 16 that as a protective statement in the context 17 of saying the reg ula t ion will give you a design.
18 MR. MICHELSON: The-real 19 problem is lack of understanding on some of the ,
20 equipment, both on the part of the staff and 21 industry.
22 MR. WARD: That is something 23 different from what Jesse is saying.
("3 24 MR. MICHELSON: I'm just L) '
25 adding to it.
Cefaratti, Rennillo
& Matthews cour, n.oorier. .( b.
88 1 MR. WARD: Jesse is
'ik 4- 2 specifically faulting the design.
3 MR. EBERSOLE: Did not 1
4 accommodate a degree of maintenance that it l l
5 mig ht have been expected. l 6 MR. STOLZ: I don' t think we 7 can arg ue with that Jesse.
8 MR. WESSMAN: In the 9 interest of time, we can let Mr. De Ag a zio come 10 up and start going down the elements of our 11 review and he will comment briefly on the 12 status of some of the items for.which we hav e f
. j 13 something to report.
14 In many items, we don' t have anything to 15 report, we do have people here today that can 16 answer questions.
17 I think we have the general people here i
18 that can answer most of the questions.
19 MR. REMICK: Any general 20 questions before we hear from the staff?
21 If not, let's proceed.
22 MR. MICHELSON: I asked a 23 question earlier concerning the modification of
~~
( I
) 24 the auxiliary feedwater steam lines and further
./
25 pr es sur i za tion .
Ceforotti, Rennillo '-
_ L Matthews cnu 1 Recorters MW
89 1 Are you the one to answer that or I[ j 2 somebody else coming up?
3 MR. DEAGAZIO: My name is Al 4 De Ag a zio , I'm the Davis-Besse project manager 5 and division officer.
6 I want to answer your question first, 7 before I forget to answer it, as I try to go 8 quickly through the presentation.
9 I think your question related to our 10 review of the change in location of the valve 11 in the steam supply to the auxiliary feedwater 12 pump turbine.
I' )
13 Toledo Ed i so n I believe anticipates 14 making that change under the provision of the 15 150-59, we have requested that analysis and 16 intend to review that analysis.
17 MR. MICHELSON: We'll see 18 the results of that r ev ie w at some future date?
19 MR. DEAGAZIO: We would 20 anticipate that would be covered in the safety 21 evaluation report. !
l 22 MR. MICHELSON: Which would 23 be November?
~
'1 24 MR. DEAGAZIO: The t im e
'0 25 frame that John gave you.
Ceforotti, Rennillo d
& Matthms c o -,eenox , $.
l l
l 90 1 The concerns that Toledo Ed i so n is
) 2 addressing, has addressed and is continuing to 3 address in their work and in their supplemental 4 course of action report was in response to the 5 letter that had been issued. That the concerns 6 that were listed in that letter were drawn 7 largely from the find ing s of the inv es t ig a tion 8 being sent down to the site just shortly after 9 the June 9th event.
10 The concerns in that letter can be 11 broadly categorized as first, follow up on the 12 i nv e s t ig a t i o ns of the Event.
) 13 Secondly, look at the specific 14 circumstances surrounding the Event and thirdly, 15 examine the problemmatic management issues 16 surrounding the way in which the plant was 17 p er f o rm ing .
18 With regard to the first category, the 19 completion of the Event investigation, Toledo 20 Ed i so n has identified, I think the 13 root 21 cause reports related to the equipment failures 22 that occurred during the Ev en t , we have 23 completed out r ev iew of six of those 13, four
/
24 of them have been pr ov ided to Toledo Ed i so n
)
25 already.
Ceforotti, Rennillo ^-
a uonhows cm.,, n.nm,1.,, GluML1
, .: . ..-.:....,;. a = = x ; . :,:a..: : - .:- .: ~:: . . -. = . . : 3.: =-. = = .=.:.w z .:,. u 2 .: = :. .
- 91 1 The other two were just available 4
() 2 yesterday _before we came out here, s'o they 3 haven't seen the results of that.
4 In summary, however, the staff has not 5 taken issue with the findings of those reports.
6- In the interest of saving time the 7 findings I believe have been provided to you 8 but we d idn' t have the opportunity ~to present
'9 them in their entirety.
10 MR. EBERSOLE: Would you
-11 have_ required what the Davis-Besse people are 12 going to put in an electric plant?
s
,13 MR. DEAGAZIO: That was
-f( )
-14 required before this Event.
15 MR. EBERSOLE: I should read 16 that as loss. of.all feedwater events, not just
- 17. main feedwater.
. 18 MR. DEAGAZIO: That's rig ht .
19 MR. EBERSOLE: What are the 20 mi tig a t ing systems? List them for me.
21 What a r e - t o.u sy s t em s that m i t ig a tes loss
. 22 of all feedwater, enumerate them?
23 MR. DEAGAZIO: That is in 24- there-for that purpose.
}
'25 MR. EBERSOLE: Tha t's part 4
Ceforotti, Rennillo d z . . - _ . _ . -
__ & Matthems c e. m n _ _ _
. . . . . - . . . . .. - ._. . . . . . . . - . - . , ~ . . . . . . . . - -
92 1 of what you just had there? I thought you said
,) 2 main feedwater.
1 3 MR. DEAGAZIO: All feedwater.
4 MR. EBERSOLE: What are the 5 systems that mi t ig a te loss of all feedwater 6 events?
7 MR. DEAGAZIO: The plant as 8 licensed.
l 1
9 MR. WARD: What specifically l l
10 about the feedwater systems prior to June did i 11 not meet licensing requirerents?
12 MR. PARR: We thought they (L;) 13 met the criteria, they do not.
14 MR. EBERSOLE: Why not?
15 MR. PARR: Because of the f 16 problem in the switchover system, that would
} 17 not meet requirements.
18 MR. MICHELSON: The f
19 enviromental pr otec tion relative to the turbine i
20 building, steam release, as a matter of fact 21 both departments, unless you can show both 22 departments are qualified for that release, it 23 is not clear.
24 MR. WARD: Is there any
( })
25 other plan in the country that will meet that Ceforotti, Rennillo
_ _ _ . & MnIthews cnar, e.cc- rs
. - UR
93 1 sort of criteria?
j 2 Feed water analysis, how much margin is 3 there, there is available as far as time and 4 what other equipment is available in order to 5 adequately, all main feedwater and auxiliary 6 feedwater, the licensee has pr ov id ad some 7 counselors evaluated by the staff the staff has 8 done its own analysis of the ability of HPI, I 9 think, and makeup p um p s and PORV cooling the 10 time margin that is available before cooling 11 and recovery.
12 With respect to its operation, it may or
(') 13 may not exist in the steam water control system.
14 There is a single failure problem or not, I'm 15 not sure that the staff has made a final 16 determination as to whether or not there is a 17 single failure problem, that is still under 18 inv es tig a tion as far as I know.
19 With respect to physical security and 20 administrative features, I don't think I need 21 to say anything on that.
22 MR. REMICK: Is the staff 23 taking a cold look at the security requirements, r^1 r
24 are current reg ula tions and what im p a c t it 1
( m -
- 25 m ig ht have in an Event like this, what is the Ceforotti, Rennillo 3--
& Matthows caurt Reporters
94 1 staff doing in that area in reviewing what l ) 2 Davis-Besse is doing?
m.
3 MR. WESSMAN: Let me 4 respond, that is one of the identif'ied short I 5 term generic issues that ensued from this Ev en t .
6 The staff will go back and look at it, the 7 security on an eng inee r ing basis for all plants, 8 to see whether we have a problem here. I'll be 9 talking more on the several types of issues 10 when I get my turn, 11 MR. DEAGAZIO: Jumping down 12 to number 7, the reliability of AFW system j 13 pumps and need to d iv er se pumps.
,x_/
14 We are looking to make independent 15 ev alua t i on of this and evaluating the design 16 Toledo Edison is prov id ing for the new style of 17 feedwater pump.
18 I'm just going to j um p down, down to item ,
19 13 the adequacy of safety system testing.
20 You heard Toledo Ed i s o n discuss what they 21 are d o i ng with respect to the systems review 22 and test procedures. The NRC is, has a joint 23 effort between Region III and NRC, we also have (3 24 one individual I believe from INE who will be
'J 25 participating in review of the scope and Cefaratti, Rennillo
& Matthews cour, Reporters (d )
95 1
^
l details of.that program. l l
2 MR. EBERSOLE: I'd like to
' ((h 'i -
N-s/ : 3 comment on. Item 8 and ask you a question, 4
4 t h a t s certainly a generic item, wherever we 5 have non-CEP w i. t h SRO, in that system has never ,
6 been e nv i r o nm e n t a l equal tied to meet the
, 7 conditions it can create to itself if you hold i .
8 it open.
9 MR. WESSMAN: Yes,
, 10 MR. EBERSOLE: Did you 11 contemplate a subject as to whether that o ug h.t 12 to be fixed?
I i' 13 MR. WESSMAN: Longstanding i.
14 ever since we found we might lose feedwater and 15 have to invoke,.we have all known for a long 16 time, if we prolong feeds we -presumably disable 17 the solenoid hot electric operation, shut and 18 stay shut and therefore lock up the plant
- 19' ag a ins t any further immediate, are you going to
, 20 have an extended investigation as to whether we h 21 can permanent the continued ex is tence ,: in the 1
22 wholesale.
l 23 MR. WESSMAN: The issue is 24 under consideration pursuant to generic issue
(.
25 70, .I believe, I don't know the. full scope of Ceforotti, Rennillo yd A AAe n.aws @vre Rewriers
96 1 generic 70, it deals with both PORV and the 2 block panel and repeat, as a result of this 3 Ev en t that same item basically got put on the 4 list to be sure we are looking at it, PORV.
5 The enviromental qualification of the valve, 6 water e nv i r o nm e n t or temperature environment, I 7 don't know the scope of that level.
8 MR. MICHELSON: I need a 9 clarification, maybe the utility will have to 10 provide it. As I recollect, when I looked at 11 auxiliary feedwater turbines and pumps, one was 12 inside a concrete structure with a heavy door, 13 et cetera, the other one along with the 14 electrical pump was in another structure which 15 I tho ug ht had a grated ce il i ng , was that my 16 correct recollection.
17 It is grated and opens into the turbine 18 building essentially.
19 MR. MICHELSON: I t ho ug ht 20 one had a ceiling was sealed up with a blowout 21 panel, three by three feet I was told, open 22 grating on both.
23 MR. QUENNOZ: Both have 24 concrete ceilings with ventilation ducts.
[ ; 25 ,
MR. MICHELSON: I t ho ug h t s e
\ ,/
f Ceforatti, Rennillo /
a unnhowc c _ , =. _ ..... ! H '1 ..
. . - ~ .a.........
97
- 1. when I came down that stairway and so forth I
'() 2 came down through a grated floor.
3 MR. QUENNOZ: Th a t ' s true.
4 MR. MICHELSON: That does n' t 5 extend over to the area underneath either 6 turbine.
7 Is there eno ug h strength in that ceiling 8- to take care of all that stuff up above, 9 wbntever mig h t be released?
10 MR. MYERS: That was issued
- 11 in the or ig inal license, I'm not exactly sure I 12 know the details.
13 MR. EBERSOLE: That permits
(~)T 14 common intrusion of both feedwater rooms?
15 MR. MYERS: Also, yes.
16 MR. MICHELSON: Also has the 17 problem of water breaks and water lines.
18 MR. MICHELSON: It's an 19 unusual arrangement to put a safety related 20 system in a nonsafety building like this.
21 It can be done but it requires great care.
22 I assume it has been r ev ie wed by the 23 staff and they are satisfied this is a s e i sm i c
(')
%)
24 qualified enclosure and all the lines leading 25 from it that have to go to the control room are Cefaratti, Rennilla
& Matthews cour, n.noriers q=
1 u____ . . . _
98 1 all seismically protected and som e day we'll i
2 pursue this in not too distant future, to see 3 why you believe tha t' s the case.
4 MR. REMICK: Shall we 5 proceed, please?
6 MR. DEAGAZIO: The only 7 comment I want to make with respect to this 8 sl id e , parallel with the first item on the 9 slide, we also just last week completed a 10 review of the progress, 11 Reg a rd ing accreditation, we don' t have 12 the results of that review yet.
() 13 The appropriate parts will be factored in 14 our evaluation for the study.
15 MR. REMICK: I'm not sure I 16 understand.
17 If you know they are accredited, how can 18 that factor in?
19 In other words, they aren't required to 20 be accredited, you know they are not, how can j 21 that been factored into restart, I don't 22 understand. ,
l l
23 MR. DEAGAZIO: Ex am in a t i on l
[ }) 24 of how that entire program has been carried out, 25 so we are looking at the effectiveness of the l
Cefa.stti, Rennillo # - I a nonhowe cmm,, o.mm.... hE!O R!
.m _ .~. _ . . . . , _ . . _ _ . . . _ . .. . . . . . _ . _ _ , __ ,__.m ...
~9 1 program, not whether or not they are accredited, l
- 2. just-what kind of progress is being made toward 3 accreditation.
4 Unless there are other questions on any
- 5. of the points here, I think we can probably go 6 to.the next slide and again, I'll only make a
.7 comment on the1first i t e m '.
8 Two weeks ag o we had a team out here
- 9. wh i r:b examined the maintenance program, 10 p r e l im in a r y find ing s -f r om this survey have come 11- to.the not surprising conclusion that past 12 practices were less than desireable or could
() 13 have.been im pr ov ed is.another way to say it, 14 b u t' there are new~ progaams that are going into 15 effect .that are planned that are just getting 1
16 started and there ha sn' t :been an adequate 17 amount of experience with.that to make a 18' statement-of how effective they are.
19 Our report from this team should be
-20 available appr o x im a te ly the end of this month, 21 so the appropriate parts on that will also b e'
.22 factored into the restart safety evaluation.
23' Unless you have.any other questions, I have
, 24 nothing else.
..[{}l 25 MR. REMICK: First, an Ceforotti, Rennillo wk lilu
. . _ _ _ - - _ - . . _ _ _ _ a ** -d == c~ ... o _ - - - - to
, ~ ~ - . . < . . ... - -. .. .
100 1 observation I made in the tour, hearing about i ) 2 the maintenance problems which apparently 3 Davis-Besse had, I was somewhat surprised to 4 find what I t h o ug h t generally good material 5 condition of the plant, I guess this is my 6 first trip here, I would guess I would have 7 seen something not quite of the quality,
. 8 material quality that I did see, this is an 9 observation of the staff also.
10 MR. DEAGAZIO: I think the 11 ni a i n t e n a nc e , the issue of maintenance may get 12_ back into areas which may not be tho ug ht of as 4-() 13 maintenance.
14 For example, a follow th r o ug h on a 15- malfunction, the investigating team may make 16 the conclusion that in many cases when there 17 has been a f ailure many of the follow up 18 inv es tig a tions may have been superficial.
19 I think the plant's general condition is 20 better, much better now than it would have been 21 had you seen it a couple years ago, this is a 22 year, you know from our reports that we have 23 continuously been involved and general
(^'i 24 maintenance and housekeeping has been a matter
\_J 25 of concern to us and the plant had a number of Ceforotti, Rennillo d
& Matthews cm wam .
~ - - . - - . . . -. - .. .. ~ . . . . . . . . . - . , . . . . . . . . - .
101 1 programs underway, t h e 7. e is an im pr ov em e n t now t'N
() 2 from what you would have seen two years ago.
3 MR. REMICK: When I see 4 things that are clean and orderly, it usually 5 means good management and maintenance.
6 MR. MICHELSON: Are you 7 going to insist upon a safety grate isolator on 8- the hydraulic and electrical, et cetera?
9' MR. ROSA: That's our intent, 10 yes, sir.
11 MR. WARD: Al, in looking at 12 the readiness for restart, has the staff
() 13 considered the rather ex tensiv e organization 14 changes that the licensee made?
15 MR. DEAGAZIO: There will be 16 a evaluation of the new organization that will 17 be in place, yes.
18 MR. WARD: Do you think 19 those changes are in the favorable direction?
20 MR. DEAGAZIO: We hav en' t 21 completed the evaluation in that respect. I 22 said that will be evaluated.
23 MR. REMICK: What criteria 24 are you going to use for making such an
(~}
v 25 evaluation?
CefaraMi, Rennilla d
& MoMhems eoert Reporrm a
102 1 MR. DEAGAZIO: That I
/ 2 couldn't tell you.
3 MR. MICHELSON: Let me ask 4 you, you said SER was not being issued until 5 late in November, it was kind of my impression 6 that the licensee intended to restart about 7 November 1, does this now mean restart much l 8 later than that?
9 MR. DEAGAZIO: My 10 u nd e r s t a nd i ng is there is no definite target 1
11 established now for restart.
12 MR. MICHELSON: Obviously
() 13 considerably later than November l?
14 MR. DEAGAZIO: Yes.
15 MR. REMICK: Does the 16 licensee have any response?
17 MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know 18 what you mean by that much later.
19 I wanted to go to start-up on November, 20 start progress the first week of November, but 21 I can't do that.
22 liR . MICHELSON: The thing I 23 would like to see in the safety evaluation is
) 24 the question you have been raising concerning 25 the h ig h energy line breaks in such Ceforotti, Rennillo '-
a unnhow< c ~ ,, e . ...,, ED0 0 l
103 1 ! c om p a r tm e n t s and the ability of valves to
.() 2 isolate and assure isolation of the breaks or
~
3 alternatively that you will account for the l 4 lack of isolation.
5 I would be looking for that as part of 6 the evaluation of the new a r r a ng em e n t since it 7 is at a considerably hig he r risk level. l l
8 MR. WESSMAN: My name Dick 9 Wessman. I'm from the div ision of licensing in 10 NRC.
l -- 11 I want to give you a brief synopsis of 12 where the staff is in dealing with some of the 13 generics.
14 From examining the events, let me say a 15 couple words about the generic review process 16 before we focus on some of the specific type of 17 issues.
t 18 No rm ally the generic issues are manag ed 19 pr im a r il y by the d iv i s i on of safety technology 20 of NRC, generic issues may come to the staff 21 from any number of sources or from within NRC.
22 When a generic issue is identified, it is 23 first and immediately identified to the
-[} 24 operating reactors a s s e s sm e n t branch d iv i sio n 25 of licensing so that the staff of that branch, Cefaratti, Rennillo %
, ____._..... .. A MGilbeW1 Cmn Ramnars dUU
104 1 which is my branch, may look at it and
() 2 d e te rm i ne if there is some immediate safety 3 significance that the staff must act on very 4 promptly.
5 If there is not a matter of meeting 6 safety significance, it is then handled 7 primarily by the d iv i s i on of safety technology 8 and the issue will be evaluated and a decision 9 made whether staff resources should be .
10 committed to this particular issue.
11 Quite actively the organization and 12 effort may take several months, it involed
[^') 13 probably and I believe risk assessment and v
14 studies and a cost benefit analysis, at that 15 point they normally classify the issues as h i g h ,.
16 medium or low.
17 Because of lim i t a t i on on staff resources, 18 those that get classified as low are at this 19 tim e generally dropped.
20 Those that are classified as h ig h are 21 pursued as rapidly as we can within the bounds 22 of resources.
23 Medium are handled somewhere in between,
) 24 but the medium issues are not thrown into the G
25 box that is entitled dropped.
Ceforatti, Rennillo l & Matthews coun neoonen 1
- -; . : . ..r .. . . . . - . .
- - - - . . . . . ...--....-.-.....w. .
t l
105 1 _Let me talk about how we.got to the term
([ ) 2 immediate generic issues and short term generic 3 issues as we dealt with the Davis-Besse Ev en t 4 of June 9th.
5 Within t h o s,e first couple of days after 6 the Event as the operating reactors assessment 7 branch was able to gain facts of the Event, 8 this was really in advance of the special 9 inv es tig a tion team publishing the report, we 10 did our best to make an assessment.
11 In other words, issues that we think we 12 snould pursue quite pr om p tl y and hopefully f')
v 13 within the next few months, these are the 14 issues that you see identified on this line.
15 Let_me say a couple-words about them, I 16 think in general they are quite 17 s el f- ex pl a n a to r y and we to uc hed on these issues 18 in previous discussion.
19 Potential ability to remove decay heat, 20 because of the questionability of AFWS, really 21 has.three subparts, the first subpart deals 22 with the possibility of common failure, that 23 they mig ht go close or be close and be stuck 24 and unable to open.
)
25 In other words, the 599-608 valve Cefaratti, Rennillo
& Matthews co- R.oo*.e -
106 1 difficulty that we are already aware of here at Davis-Besse.
) 2 3 MR. MICHELSON: Why isn't 4 that an immediate generic issue since the same 5 problem of valve adjustment pertains 6 throughtout the industry perhaps.
7 MR. WESSMAN: I think we 8 feel that there is the potential problem of 9 valve ad j us tm en t throughout the industry, we 10 felt that this had been pursued on a rapid 11 basis but not necessarily within the matter of 12 the first couple weeks.
~
( 'j 13 MR. MICHELSON: Not even the 14 matter of next few months, since I really don't 15 see it on your short term list either.
16 MR. WESSMAN: Yes, sir it is, 17 first item on the potential inability to remove 18 decay, three subparts, one is the valves, so it 19 is on the short term.
20 Perhaps I could have made the outline in 21 more detail, but I d id n ' t .
22 MR. MICHELSON: I must have 23 misinterpreted, you mean all valve problems 24 under that item then I'm happy.
'~ )
~2 5 MR. WESSMAN: We suspect Ceforotti, Rennillo -? -
& Matthews cour, Repor,er. L,6 . . . . _
- .. a . .
.-- n. . --------------------- - r .. un- r . ._. . _ _ . _ . .
107 1 that, r ig h t now first looking and foremost at ;
i
() 2 the decay heat aspect, the second aspect of the 3 inability to remove decay focuses on the l 4 turbines and turbine trip mechanism.
5 Obviously here at Davis-Besse we say 6 difficulty and ability to reset and dif ficul t 7 with the governor mechanism.
8 That aspect also included under the first 9 item.
10 Thirdly, under this item under the item 11 to remove decay heat is the item .related to 12 steam and steam rupture mi t ig a t ing systems.
f' 't 13 MR. EBERSOLE: You have
' <. )
14 skillfully avoided diversity in the need for 15 pumps. Why d id you do that?
16 MR. WESSMAN: I don't know 17 that I skillfully avoided it.
18 MR. EBERSOLE: You did.
19 MR. WESSMAN: From a generic 20 standpoint, Davis-Besse is the last plant that 21 does not have this electric pump, we are 22 focusing on Davis-Jesse from a plant specific 23 standpoint.
, 24
- Let me go on.
25 The second maj or short term generic issue Ceforotti, Rennillo
__.___ __ _ .. __& Matthews com Reconm
_ _. _ _ . . . _ - . . . _ _. . _..-.--;:.._..-_.-...-2 108 1 that we identified was the adequacy of I x _) 2 emergency procedures to deem in a situation 3 where quote drastic action m ig ht be required.
4 To take a look at the procedures relating to 5 that on a generic basis and see whether 6 criteria is clear and that the operators are 7 trained to properly initiate this cooling.
8 The third maj or item here deals with 9 physical security system constraints, this is 10 the third marriage of the short term items, to 11 get the equipment when you need to in a hurry.
12 Pr ior i za t ion of these issues is in
()
n 13 progress and my understanding nearly completely 14 and at that point.
I.
f 15 The division of safety technology will 16 g ive us recommendations whether these are h ig h ,
i 17 medium or low and at that point we'll start 18 down the fact of putting staff resources to 19 work on them.
! 20 I also would expect NRC plans to move 21 fairly rapidly, we think they are im po r t a n t and 22 staff said they are im po r t a n t , we are calling 23 them short term i t em s .
l ; 24 As part of our review we also identified 25 a number of issues under longer term generic l
Ceforotti, Rennillo
& Matthews coun Reponem (l __
109 1 issues. These are issues, we see issues that 2 can be allowed to proceed through the
'(v^}
3 relatively normal path of routine examination 4 and priorization and which really mean that can 5 be a number of months before priorization is j 6 really complete on these items.
7 The first five or so are derived from 8' NUREG 1154 and the last one and several on the 9 following' slide have been derived from the 10 issues identified to the NRC staff primarily by 11 the other members of NRC and in a couple cases 12 individuals outside of NRC.
em .13 I- d on' t think I would necessarily dwell D~
14 specifically on any of these.unless there is a 15 question dealing with them. Most of them I 16 think are relatti issues that we talked about.
17 MR. REMICK: I h'a v e a 18 question relating to the STA, does anybody know 19 whut the status is of the rule that would 20 enable the STA to become the second SRO on the 21 shift.
22 The last I k'n e w the commission was still 23 working on that, anybody know in the ind us tr y?
24 MR. WESSMAN: I'm sorry, I
,-t ,)
25 cannot answer that.
Cefaratti, Rennillo
& Matthews cour, R.por,.rs ( ) -
110 1 Next slide.
( 2 These ag ain , long term potential generic 3 issues, are pr im a r il y items that came from 4 other ind iv id ual s on the staff and are not 5 derived directly from reviews of NUREG 1154.
6 I would comment very briefly on items 10 7 and 11.
8 At this point this is the sum total of 9 our, at least from NRC's s tand po int of long 10 term generic issues, 11 l'd like to comment briefly on a couple 12 activities in a generic activity that are being
) 13 handled by other offices.
14 As you may be aware, INE has been working 15 on a bulletin that focuses directly on the
- 1. 6 proper operation of the motor operated valves 17 and which, again, systems back to the 18 difficulties with reopening the 599/608 valve, 19 valves that encounter a h ig h differential 20 pressure may not be properly set from the 21 standpoint of operators to open under all 22 circumstances in which they mig ht encounter.
23 This bulletin has been developed by INE 24 and reviewed by NRC and staff interchange on it,
(~')
25 and I believe to go to .t h e CRGR within the next Ceforatti, Rennillo - ' -
a Matthaws e n . ,.. n ,. n,.. .s EDJllll
.... . .... . . a ..: - - - = . ~. z --....:.. .. .. . . . . . - . . . . . . . - - - .
111 1 week or so.
, 2 MR. WESSMAN: If I m ig ht 3 suggest on the bulletin, it is my understanding 4 that the bulletin has not been t r a n sm i t ted from 5 INE to the CRGR for r ev iew but at the point INE 6 is satisfied with their own staff action and 7 submitted to the CRGR a copy will be made ;
8 available to ACRS, by next Tuesday they are 9 ready to do it with their own staff review, I 10 think that's the appropriate time.
1 1- A couple activities I have underway, the 12 INE is looking at the notification that was
()
13 made to the emergency response center v 'i a the 14 VNS phone network and the decl'aration of 15 emergency class that was made by the utility 16 and I believe they are developing an i.e. is in 17 this area regarding the licensee.
18 I also expect that they would look at 19 some aspects of AFAW turbine reliability and 20 some aspects of equipment malfunctions that are 21 identified in NUREG'1154 subsequent to the 22 completion of utilities who cause analysis 23 efforts and I think in part depending on NRC
(] 24 actions, in this arena that may feel.the issue,
<j 25 an INE notice in this area.
~
Cefaratti, Rennillo
_ _ _ _ _ _ - -& MIO0howa emcamzw
112 1 That's all I have.
_) 2 MR. WESSMAN: I think the 3 staff has completed its portion.
l 4 MR. REMICK: Any other j 5 questions or comments from the subcommittee, 6 either the licensee or staff?
7 I'd like to spend a few minutes, we will 8 have two hours Thursday afternoon, 1:45 to 3:45 9 and based on how things went this afternoon, 10 first if I look at the staff, I have a feeling t
11 based on the fact you still have much reviewing i
12 to do, probably one would be in much better I 13
) position to say much more than you did today I 14 think you provided the general type of thing 15 that you would need to do in showing those 16 slides.
17 Pick *he ones you think are im po r t a n t ,
18 not necesso _y go over every item, you m ig ht 19 get a question for a particular one, but pick 20 out the ones that you feel are more important 21 and say something.
22 I will suggest that we limit the staff to 23 45 minutes time and presentation and time for
[} 24 questioning. Probably still allow half the 25 t im e for questions.
. Ceforotti, Rennillo - ' -
_ _ _ _ . . A Matthews cmor, s.mn,,.,1 EI_!fl fl!
113 1 The Chairman will have a tough t im e
?>
a i 2 keeping to that probably, does 45 minutes sound-3 reasonable?
4 Then allow not quite a hour and 15 5 minutes for the licensee.
6 I feel because we'll have a full 7 committee, I will have to make some
.8 introductory remarks to bring them up to speed 9 and that m ig ht be just a very quick rehash of l
10 events, to bring up to mind what we are talking 11 about.
12 If licensee ag r ees , I m ig ht include some 13 of the major organizational changes that you
(')N w
14 made to save you time if you need to have 15 s om e b od y come up and present that, quickly 16 mention two or three of the items that you are 17 doing and point out to the committee that there 18 are other things.
'19. I think you should concentrate on what 20 you, what was the problem, what do you believe 1
21 is the root cause and what is your proposed fix.
22 Basically I think the latter parts of 23 your presentation were of that type, where you r^' 2:4 are telling people that this is what the N~)3 l 25 problem was and this is how we ate going to fix Cefaratti, Rennillo =
& Matthews . coure. Reporters (d, J
. .r . ~ . -. . u . . .. . . . .u.........-.:-....-.--. -
114 1 it and so forth, I think you should concentrate
.rk
(
v l 2 on that.
3 I think you should concentrate on not j 4 telling people how you . d id it but what you d id .
5 Those org an i za t i o nal thing s and committees and 6 numbers of committees and things are im po r tan t 7 but in the t im e span, it probably would be 8 better to concentrate on root causes and fixes 9 and be prepared to answer questions on that.
10 That would be my suggestion.
11 I would suggest that your handouts be 12 placed in the order they are going to be
()
r, 13 presented to save the committee members from 14 having to flash around.
15 If they can see what is coming up, 16 s om e t im e s they can look ahead, that is coming 17 up, I won't ask a question at this point in 18 time.
19 Today's was som ewh a t out of order, we had 20 to go back and forth.
21 I would suggest that you keep the number 22 of presenters to as few as you can. I think we 23 always lose t im e if we have many presenters, I i')J 24 think you have to dictate there what you feel Lj 25 comfortable with.
Cefaratti, Rennillo
.___________ _______ --- -__ ft Matthews _counA.conen_ _
115 -
1 I think those are the general comments.
L[ws) 2 You.are going to have to cut down 3 considerably and you will have lots of 4 questions, I won't have any more luck with the 5 full committee than I had with the subcommittee, 6 I can assure you, so, we' ll be on a tight arm 7 schedule. The chairman was sitting nex t- to me, 8 I asked him, can we possibly get more t im e? He 9 said it is not available, we'll have to stick 10 to the two hour time span and it will be my job 11 to try and keep ev er ybod y wi thin that.
12 We are fortunate we have a fair
/^3 13 representation here, a third of the G:
14 subcommittee.
15 They had a chance to ask a number of 16 questions. I would ask them if they already 17 asked the question that unless they feel it is 18 im po r t a n t to bring it out in the full committee, 19 that they restrain repeating questions unless 20 they feel it is im po r t a n t from that s tand po int .
l 21 It is a lot better to get to the 22 nitty-gritty aspects of what you are going to
'23 do, how you do it is your business.
24 Does the staff have any comments or word s j-
~,.
25 of wisdom or suggestions?
Ceforotti, Rennillo d A Motthews coun 9poneri _
116 1 Anything from the licensee?
/m
( ) 2 We do appreciate your hosting our meeting 3 and g iv i ng us the opportunity to see the plant.
4 I know all of us enj oyed that, it was very 5 helpful.
l' l
6 Thank you. l l
7 (MEETING ADJOURNED.)
l 8 - - - - -
l
> 9 ,
i I l
10 l 11 l I
12 l
/ i 13 I Q 1 14 I
15 16 j 1
\
17 !
l 18 19 j 20 21 22 23 l l
t'7 24
%) 1 25 l l
l Ceforotti, Rennillo
_. _ . & Matthews coun n.oon m (i ' -Cibb
4 117 1 CERTIFICATE 2 I de hereby certify that as such Reporter 3 I took down in Stenotypy all of the pr oceed ing s 4 had in the foregoing transcript; that I have 5 transcribed my said Stenotype notes into 6' typewritten form as appears in the foregoing 7 transcript; that said transcript is the 8 complete form of the pr oc eed i ng s had in said 9 cause and constitutes a true and correct 10 transcript therein.
11
/
-/
12 M- ,
Y __
m 13
/
i --
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
, T
- 25 Ceforotti, Rennillo
& Matthews cour, Reporters ,) )
(dm)
CLEVELAND. OHIO (216' 6871161
..s. . __ _ _. _ _ . - - - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ ._. _ _ _ _ . ___. . _ _ . _
i 117 1 CERTIFICATE p 2 I do hereby certify that as such Reporter 3 I took down in Stenotypy all of the proceedings 4 had in the foregoing transcript; that I have 5 transcribed my said Stenotype notes into 6 typewritten form as appears in the foregoing 7 transcript; that said transcript is the 8 complete form of the proceedings had in said 9 cause and constitutes a true and correct 10 transcript therein.
11 -/
p
' 12 /
13
/
(
14 15 16 17
- 18 19 20 21 22 23 j- 24 25 Ceforotti, Rennillo dye a Matthews. Coun popon m ,, JJ m
CLEVELAND, OHIO (216) 6871161