ML20136G086
| ML20136G086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1985 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1469, NUDOCS 8511220249 | |
| Download: ML20136G086 (158) | |
Text
,
OlGlNAL UNITED STATES Oc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILLSTONE UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 O
LOCATION:
WATERFORD, CONNECTICUT PAGES:
1 - 103 DATE:
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1985 lr..
I;
- I.:/
f 1 ; ! % M J u l l C.. ]
d Jo Not 3emovefrom ACRS0? ice ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n()
Offic:al Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 09111g 49 Obi 12 S
PDil NATIONWIDE COVERACE
%9
m-_
(~)
\\~/
PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MONDAY, NdVEMBER 18, 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 responsibility for errors or inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript.
o O
-CR24939.0 BRT/sjg y
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s'"3 t
k.)
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILLSTONE UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 4
5 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company 6
Training Center Rope Ferry Road 7
Waterford, Connecticut Monday, November 18, 1985 The subcommittee meeting convened at 5:00 p.m.,
Paul G.
9 Shewmon, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
10 11 ACRS MEMBERS PRESENT:
I2 PAUL G.
SHEWMON, ACRS Member
(
13 DADE W.
MOELLER, ACRS Member 14 DAVID A. WARD, ACRS Member 15 JOHN BENDER, ACRS Consultant 0
JOHN SCHIFFGENS, ACRS Staff Member 17 18 19 20 21 22 i
24 D Federal Repe,1ers, Inc.
25 I
L.-
24939.0 2
BRT 1
P3Q$33p1 Egg 2
MR. SHEWMON:
This is a meeting on Millstone 3
Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 through 3.
I'm Paul thewmon, 4
chairman of the Subcommittee.
Other ACRS members present 5
are Dade Moeller and David Ward, at least in spirit, 6
although he may never have gotten past the Atlanta airport 7
this morning.
Also present is ACRS consultant John Bender, 8
John Schiffgens, on my right, the assigned ACRS staff 9
member for the meeting.
10 The purpose of the meeting is to begin to review 11 the application of the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company for 12 the conversion of the POL for Millstone 1, the POL to an 13 FTOL.
I'll hear about the implementation of the ISAP 14 program at Millstone 1.
We'll hear presentations by and 15 hold discussions with the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, 16 the NRC Staff and their designated consultants.
17 In the event that there is a need to discuss 18 proprietary information, the Subcommittee should be 19 informed so that that portion of the meeting can be closed.
20 A transcript is being kept of the entire meeting and it is 21 requested that each speaker first identify himself or 22 herself and speak with sufficient clarity so that they can 23 be readily heard.
24 We have received no written comments from x
25 members of the public and received no request for time to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m. m tero N vinn ye nv m se am.114.AA44 e
24939.0 3
BRT 1
make oral statements from members of the public.
I guess 2
that summarizes it, then, unless anybody else has something 3
to say here.
4 We have done the tour.
The next is introduction, 5
POL to FTOL conversion, operating philosophy and experience.
6 Who's that?
Do we have a copy that has a name of the 7
actors on here?
8 MR. SCHIFFGENS:
No, we don't.
9 MR. SHEWMON:
Are you starting on that?
10 MR. KACICH:
I'll just give a brief, broad 11 discussion.
I'm Richard Kacich, licensing supervisor for 12 Northeast.
All I wanted to do by way of introduction is, em
\\
13 l if I could refer you to the handout that you got earlier v
14 today,'socond shoot identifies the principals from 15 Northeast Utilities that are going to be involved.
The 16 sheet covers people that are not here today but will be 17 involved in presentations tomorrow.
I'll go over that 18 briefly and let you know who is who and why they are hero.
19 The first one, Mike Bain, is licensing engincor.
He has 20 been involved in SEP issues and is involved in ISAP right 21 now.
So that's his involvement with this meeting.
22 John Dickel, supervisor of our PRA sossion, 23 he'll be giving the sessions tomorrow dealing with the PRA 24 and methodology and application to the ISAP projections.
gm 25 Paul Blasioli will be hero tomorrow from the liconsing ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
w ms m wnmue %rw em.u4 gg
. ~_
24939.0 4
i l
BRT l
l l C) l 1
group, he'll be giving the presentation to NUREG 0737 items, j
i 2
including the SPDS, control roam design review, emergency i
3 procedures and that sort of activity.
4 The next two individuals, Eric Debarba and Jay 5
Ely, are going to be here from the mechanical engineering 6
group, primarily to talk about IGSCC results.
We have
[
i f
7 gotten most, if not all the results available from the t
8 current outage and we plan to discuss that briefly and we 9
can also delve into the past a little bit to the extent l
10 you're interested in that.
11 Harry Haynes is'the manager of operator training.
l 12 MR. BENDER:
Are you going to compare your
-()
13 experience with others?
e i
14 MR. KACICH:
On IGSCC7 Those people are going j
15 to be able to talk about it in general terms, yes.
16 MR. BENDER:
I think it would be interesting to
(
f 17 know.
18 MR. MOELLER:
And also anything you have done 19 that's different than others to give you better experience.
20 MR. KACICH:
We have, by way of summary, 21 experience -- what our experience has been really from day
(
22 one and, given your expressed interest, I'll be sure we I
I 23 cover that tomorrow.
t l
24 Harry Haynes is the manager of operator training i
25 and he was of course involved in our tour of this facility
(
i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Amikm -
e9erm~1---
PES"r~n
24939.0 5
BRT 1
earlier today and he'll be giving the presentation about 2
operator training / operator requalification tomorrow.
3 The next person listed is myself.
Next is Mitch 4
Lede rman.
He's in our licensing group and is heavily 5
involved in our ISAP activities.
Wayne we have already met, 6
he's the Millstone station superintendent, and John Stetz, 7
the Millstone 1 superintendent you have already met.
8 We'll probably have some other people here to 9
answer questions if needed, but thoso are the principals 10 that would be involved for today and tomorrow and with that 11 I would just propose to turn it over to John who will get 12 into our operating experienco and history.
()
13 MR. MOELLER:
You are licensing supervisor; is 14 that the title?
IL MR. KACICH:
Licensing supervisor.
16 MR. MOELLER:
What does that entail?
17 MR. KACICH:
In my case it's the three operating 18 plants are my responsibility, Connecticut Yankoo and 19 Millstone 1 and 2.
And than thoro's a poor of mine who is 20 a licensing supervisor to Millstono 3 and we report to a 21 manager of generation facilition licensing which includes 22 fossil and hydro as wall as nuclear licensing activition.
23 MR. MOELLER:
And you koep up, then, on all 24 matters pertaining to licensing and kooping up with the NRC 25 and so forth?
O ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
crwcxn e m-~
e
24939.0 6
BRT O'
1 MR. KACICH:
Yes, sir.
That's correct.
2 MR. MOELLER:
And then you can call on any group 3
within any of these units to provide you information that 4
you need and so forth?
I 5
MR. KACICH:
Absolutely.
It's a coordination 6
function to make sure that NRC's and, in this case, ACRS's 7
needs are taken care of in terms of information and so 8
forth.
9 MR. MOELLER:
And how do I know whether you act 10 as a shield to keep the plant people from being bothered by 11 us or that you actually act as a communicator to relay our 12 concerns to the right people?
Could you assure me that you
()
13 aren't simply a shield?
14 MR KACICH:
The top priority, as far as my 2
15 function and anyone else in the company is concerned, is 16 safety.
To the extent that the NRC has questions that 17 relate to that, our objective is to make sure that they are 18 legitimately and completely addressed.
19 MR. MOELLER:
And so the person within the plant 20 or the section or group that needs to respond to that 21 problem, they are fully involved and you are communicating 22 with them and obtaining the information that's needed in 23 keeping it up?
24 MR. KACICH:
That's correct.
I would align it 25 to the NRC's concept of project managers.
I think it's ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- oM41EG trtm^^A s o _ __-- E3m - _--- _--__ __ __--
24939.0 7
BRT
)
1 important to have a focal point for communications but only 2
to facilitate.
3 MR. MOELLER:
You are the focal point, then.
4 MR. KACICH:
Yes, and people that work for me.
5 Yes.
6 Any other questions?
I'll turn it over to John.
7 MR._STETZ:
My name is John Stetz, the Unit 1 8
superintendent.
Do we have any questions about the tour 9
before we start?
Before I start?
10 Okay.
I'll give a brief rundown of the unit 11 history and I'll talk a little bit about our operating 12 philosophy and experience.
(-
j 13 We spoke a little bit earlier about how we are y
14 aligned on the units, as far as starting with the station 15 superintendent who is responsible for the three units.
He 16 has overall site responsibility.
The individual unit 17 superintendents come underneath him.
That includes myself, 18 Unit 2, Unit 1 superintendents.
Underneath them we have 19 the individual units' departments.
And within that group t
20 we have engineering.
We have instrumentation and control, 21 we have maintenance and we have operations.
22 (Slide.)
23 Each of the units are aligned alike.
There are 24 some groups.
The services group is another superintendent, 25 and they have people that cross lines.
They have like a l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverste 800 336-6644
24939.0 8
BRT (h
'/
1 health physics department; they have a chemistry department.
2 They take care of security, take care of the~ computers.
So 3
that's how we are aligned, Connecticut Yankee is aligned 4
also.
5 I'll talk a little bit about our unit history.
6_
We started off May of 1966 with construction, with General 7
Electric.
And about that time we started looking at the E
8 types of people that we were going to need to staff and we 9
decided that it would be a great benefit to the company to l
10 have a good mixture of nuclear Navy experience and fossil 11 experience, so we took our original group of people from 12 the, at that time CL&P and HELCO plants, South Meadow
()
13 station, and we put them together with two Navy people to 14 comprise the original'six shift supervisors and that was 15 really the heart or the beginning of our nuclear operation.
16 Among those original people that licensed on th'e 17 unit, you may be familiar with Bill Council and Vince 18 Papamyer.
Vince Papamyer is with IN?O right now and 19 Council ic down with Texas Utilities.
And we have one of 20 the original shift supervisors still acting in that 21 capacity.
The other ones have moved onto other positions 22 within the company.
Some have retired.
23 MR. MOELLER:
How long have you been here?
l 24 MR. STETZ:
I was originally here the end of 25 1969.
I went through the construction phase with General l
l l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202 347 3700 Nationwide CovGR~)
800 336 6646
24939.0 9
BRT
/^\\
1 Electric, working for General Electric.
I was responsible 2
for the nuclear instrumentation installation at that time 3
and testing.
4 Afte'r that I came back, did several refueling 5
outages, and I joined Northeast Utilities in 1977.
I 6
worked up through the engineering department and I went 7
into the operations department as the operations assistant 8
and then into the' instrumentation and control supervisor's 9
position and then unit superintendent position.
Okay?
10 So the reason I brought that up is that we feel 11 that at Millstone 1 that's the key to our whole operation, 12 is the people and the atmosphere.
I think if you talk to
()
13 any of the people that come to audit us or have any 14 dealings with~us, they'll tell you we have a receptive 15 attitude and that's what we try to do, have overyone 16 working towards the same end and make it a good place to 17 work.
18 So, the initial on-line was November 1970; 19 commercial operation was in December; and 100 percent power 20 was achieved in January, 1971.
21 (Slide.)
22 Some of the statistics on the unit.
As far as 23 refuel outages go, we have had some short ones, we have had 24 some long ones.
As you can see, we've gone from a high of 25 197 days, down to a low of -- well, we won't quite make
,S L)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3r2 99 3700 Nationwide Coverage Cib32"C"3
24939.0 10 BRT
-,Q 1
that 33-day outage this time but we did an awful lot of 2
work and as the years go on that becomes more and more 3
complicated to do the work, so I think that's a fantastic 4
achievement even if we get close to it.
5 We have gone through some problems over the 6
years.
Our sparger replacements, we have gone through that 7
three times.
We have gone-through various modifications.
8 General Electric is --
9 MR. SHEWMON:
There's at least six different 10 models of spargers mentioned in the SERs and you say you 11 went through it three times.
You only changed half of them 12 out for each model?
()
13 MR. STET 2:
No.
We changed them all each time.
14-I'm not sure which revision we have now but we have 15 inspected it every time since the original installation and 16 we haven't had any problems since then.
I don't believe we 17 have the final revision.
I think we have one of the 18 previous ones but it has been operating just fine.
We 19 inspect it every outage.
20 MR. BENDER:
Problem since when?
21 MR. STET 2:
Since the initial operation.
22 MR. BENDER:
You have the next to the last 23 design in service right now.
24 MR. STET 2:
Yes.
25 MR. BENDER:
How long has it been in service?
t ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
5%MMhTn -
T3twfM@mrm e
24939.0 11 BRT 1
MR. ROMBERG:
'80 outage, I think.
2 MR. BENDER:
So it's five years.
And you 3
inspected it how many times?
4 MT. STETZ:
Thre'e times.
5 MR. ROMBERG:
Let's get back and address it 6
tomorrow, if we could.
I'd rather give the right answer --
7 MR. SHEWMON:
There have been three outages 8
since then -- should be four.
But 9
MR. STETZ:
There's some people from corporate 10 that can give you more details than I can on that problem.
11 MR. BENDER:
I'll be glad to wait.
12 MR. MOELLER:
And you did that also in the 13 seventh refueling?
Is that why it was 197 days?
14 MR. STET 2:
No, that was some EEO problems, the 15 environmental enclosures.
We went through a lot of 16 '
modifications.
Late in the outage we discovered we had to 17 do those things and that dragged on.
I 18 '
MR. MOELLER:
Roughly, what is your target, now, 19 between refuelings?
What is it, 18 months?
20 MR. STETZ:
We are running about 18 months.
Wo 21 have been running to longer and longer fuel cycles and wo 22 have been a loader in that aroa, working with Gonoral 23 Electric and we find the longer fuel cycles, they havo 24 significant advantages for us as far as oliminating costly 25 outagos and exposures are lower.
They are all of
'm ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n3 u 3 nn m u,, _ u c. m., m un uw.a
24939.0 12 BRT
/~}
1 tremendous benefit for us.
Initially we thought we might i
2 not be able to do that type of a long run.
We might have 3
to have a short maintenance outage in between because of 4
equipment problems, but we have learned a lot more about 5
the equipment and how to maintain it properly and we have 6
not had a problem by doing these long runs.
7 MR. MOELLER:
And do you still replace about a 8
third of the the fuel each time?
9 MR. STET 2:
Yes.
There are 200 bundles going in 10 this timo.
11 MR. ROMBERG:
It's interesting to note that 12 197-day outage was the first wave of tromondous --
?~
i) 13' MR. MOELLER:
Through TMI.
sm 14 MR. ROMBERG:
And at that point wo weren't smart 15 enough to learn how to say no.
We tried to do too much and 16 we really lost control of the craft or our own ability to 17 do work.
Since that we havo never had anything like that.
10 MR. STET 2 That was when we first started with 19 our backfit organization and they went through a learning 20 curvo on how to handle the crafts and backfits and 21 ovarything, so wo have boon doing a lot of learning.
22 (Slido.)
23 Thoso are the latest figuren that I havo, as far 24 as conoration goon and overall capacity factor, 67.5, and 25 availability 75 porcent.
<~
(_)
i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1%P:W W0 men rafec~n
24939.0 13 BRT l
/~S 1
MR. BENDER:
Are you going to tel( us, sometime, 2
how the 25 percent breaks down?
You have 75 percent 3
availability, so there's a 25 percent outage factor.
It 4
would be interesting to no know what the major Connecticut 5
contributors are?
6 MR. STET 2:
The major contributors are the 7
outages themselves.
As you can see from tne previous slide, 8
they vary quito a bit and they take up to anywhere from 15 9
percent, and then we work on down.
That's an overall 10 number.
We have got some other figures that show capacity 11 factors.
12 Again, by having --
()
13 MR. DENDER:
I guess I was asking for semothing 14 a little bit more dotalled than just the outages themselves.
15 Is the time att:ributable to the IGSCC correction or other 16 kinds of things?
It would be nice to know more about them.
17 MR. ROMBERG Lot me address that.
This is 18 Wayne Romberg.
The availability factor 75 percent -- that 19 is from the beginning of the itfn of the planet or since wo 20 started kuoping records.
Actually that number is much 21 higher than that.
Tako the last three years it runs around 22 88 porcent and we do in fact have an exact breakdown of 23 that, it comes out monthly.
I didn't bring it along.
But 24 when you look at 80 porcont, outago is the biqqost ploco of 25 that And if you look at other problems, IGSCC, for ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
f3D6D NCtrCcm C~) C C D
[
24939.0 14 BRT r^)s i
1 instance the last, it was a very small piece of that.
Life m
2 of the unit-wise, the things that really hurt us were the 3
two long outages you saw, the spargers and the replacement 4
that we didn't label separately and then the 1980 outage.
5 We just went into it totally unprepared because 6
of the outage case and we got all these backfits at the 7
same time.
Those were the biggest pieces of these chunks.
8 If you look at recent operation one of the biggest in the 9
last cycle was Hurricane Gloria, believe it or not, because 10 there just wasn't anything else.
You take a slice out for 11 proconditioning fuel, out for condensor -- you tako a slico l
12 for attet-up camps and so on and the remaining slice is
()
13 outago.
Thore just isn't anything also.
The plants work 14 very well.
IGSCC has not cost us very muci because of a 15 tack that we took decision-wise a couple of years ago not 16 to do pipe replacement.
17 MR. DENDEh:
I had a particular thought in mind 18 when I asked tho question.
Obviounty in looking at 19 somothing on tho viewgraph, the trend is important.
We 20 would like to soo, as apparently is the case here, that wo 21 aren't anoing something Itko a bathtub characteristic, 22 whora you go to a cortain lovel and stop and then you start 23 losing timo again.
I think wo would like to soo that.
24 MR. ROMDERGt Right now wo aro on the bottom of 25 the bath tub and would liko to 4tay tnore as long as wo can.
t l
Acu. FEDERAL RuPonTuns, INC.
l M W1 N*on*W' COCO
- )M *4
24939.0 15
.BRT 1
We got down the front half.
We had a little blip there in
~
i i
t 2
1980, with the TMI backsit.
There just got to be too much 3
stuff.
4 MR. SHEWMON:
Are you base-loading the plant yet?
5 Are you talking about load following at all?
6 MR. STETZ:
Yes, we are.
We have been running 7
base load since we came on line and the only thoughts along 8
that line is when Unit 3 comes on we may be cycling just 9
because it's easier for a BWR to cycle than it is for a PWR.
10 MR. SHEWMON:
That isn't what GE used to tell l
l 11 you on the fuel.
12 MR. STET 2:
I'll get into the fuel a little bit O
i is 1ecer-l 14 (Slide.)
l 15 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
We are talking about
[
16 capacity factors and you can get a good idea from this 17 where we are going.
1985, 93.9; '84 -- I think we have --
f 18 all but three years we have been above the industry average, I
I l
19 oven considering all our problems.
Even considering some i
l 20 of the low capacity factors we had in the beginning of the l
21 unit life, it has been pretty good since then.
11e have 22 been doing a lot of learning and getting better at i
23 everything.
24 MR. ROMBERG It might be pointed out --
25 MR. BENDER:
Let me start again.
The 74.6 in O
l Acs. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i E 3 007.) R Neuen.We covo s00 33 4 644 i
24939.0 16 BRT
/~\\T) 1
'84 was a substantial drop from the 92.6 in '83 and got 2
back up to 93.9 in
'85.
3 MR. ROMBERG:
We went onto an 18-month cycle, so 4
it depends on where the outage falls.
If the cycle falls 5
completely one year that brings that year down.
Remember 6
these are availability factors -- we do closedowns because 7
that brings capacity down intentionally; that was an 8
economic decision we made.
It has nothing to do with the 9
economic decision.
It has to do with the economic decision 10 to cost it.
If you look at the availability numbers they 11 are quite a bit higher than that.
12 MR. MOELLER:
Even when you coast down and can't
()
13 possibly maintain the power, if you don't you are penalized 14 for that?
15 MR. ROMBERG:
Doesn't hurt your availability 16 factor, it hurts your capacity factor because capacity is 17 what you made over what you could have made if you had run 18 at full power.
Also, we lose about 1 percent off the top 19 because the machine won't generate what it originally 20 generated, because the condenser is different than 21 originally.
We give that away.
22 MR. SHEWMON:
Fewer tubes or thicker walls?
23 MR. ROMBERG:
This is different material.
24 MR. STETZ:
This note 2 down here, this was one 25 we were running after we had our condenser problem, our ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
8003) M W6 E5D374Si3 NCtswide Coverc~)
24939.0 17 BRT
\\
1 water induction problem.
That extended our outage in that 2
year.
3 (Slide.)
4 I just wanted to briefly go over our SALP 5
reviews.
We have had no category 3s over the years.
This 6
one, the period is '83 through '85.
Our latest one, we 7
have had a couple of areas in the 2s, and our previous 8
years we have had several areas in the 2s.
9 (Slide.)
10 We have been able to improve each one of those 11 years by getting it back up to a category 1.
12 MR. SHEWMON:
What does a 2 in refueling mean?
()
13 MR. STETZ:
A 2 in refueling means -- there are 14
'a number of things lumped into that.
Tom can probably give 15 us all the items.
16 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
I will be covering that, but we 17 will look at those activities, all those activities having 18 to do with a fueling outage, including the installation of 19 design changes, work controlled during the refueling, as 20 well as the actual act of refueling the reactor.
21 (Slide.)
22 Some of the major items, major modifications 23 that we have made over the years I would just like to 24 briefly touch on.
If you have any questions, please bring 25 them up.
7-v ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
EBDSR3 RTasom CWCC~D
24939.0 18 BRT xs 1
8 by 8 fuel.
We have gone to 8 by 8, and after 2
that we have gone to the b'arrier fuel type.
We have one 3
more outage to go through and we'll have all barrier fuel 4
in.
That's the latest General Electric design.
5 MR. SHEWMON:
Is this the zirconium barrier, or 6
copper, or what?
7 MR. STETZ:
It's a zirconium layer inside the 8
fuel rod and 'it's resistant to fuel rod problems.
9 MR. SHEWMON:
The Canadians use graphite, 10 Japanese push copper, GE --
11 MR. STETZ:
One more fuel load and we should 12 have all of the barrier fuel installed.
r~m
()
13 Higher energy pipe breaks.
We didn't get to see 14 it today on the tour, but we have encapsulated our red ' reg 15 station which is outside the control room and we have done 16 portions of the piping upstream and downstream of the 17 station also.
18 our off-gas system and rad waste system 19 modifications; we originally had a 30-minuto delay pipe and 20 with the 7 by 7 fuel problems that we had, we had higher 21 than release -- higher release rates than we would have 22 liked to.
So early in the unit's life we decided to look 23 at an off gas system and we decide to go down the road and 24 put in an air cycle gas system and quickly found that had 25 some problems with catalyst migrations getting back into 7_
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
DM37@00 Nationwide CW 800 336 4644
24939.0 19 BRT
/~'T#
1 the front end of the system and it was prone to detonation, 2
so we never did operate with that system and decided in 3
1977 to convert to a steam dilution of f-gas recombiner 4
system.
5.
We took a line at all the designs that were on 6
the market at the present time, all the operating 7
experience that was available, and we kind of put together 8
all the best features of each one and we had Cosmodyne 9
build us a recombiner.
10 MR. SHEWMON:
What's the main source of 11-radioactivity in the off-gas if you do it right?
12 MR. STETZ:
n)
(
13 MR. SHEWMON:
And if you do it wrong?
s
, 14 MR. STETZ:
Same thing, I believe.
15 MR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
So it's a holdup on those 16 elements?
17 MR. STETZ:
Yes, it is.
18 MR. SHEWMON:
Thank you.
19 MR. STETZ:
So we went through those 20 modifications.
We installed a recombiner system in the 21 holdup system.
Wepassedthatbuild[ngonthewayintothe 22 plant.
We have 11 tons of charcoal in two hold up tanks, 23 it's refrigerated to minus 30 degrees and that contributes 24 on the average about five microcuries per second of our 25 releases right now.
So it has decreased it tremendously.
3 N]
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
E-347 3700 NatioTrNh@iverage fTib3EM""3
24939.0 20
!BRT
/~(
I'd
-11 Rad waste system modifications.
We also went 2
through'some modifications to install a larger evaporator.
3
'We' originally were designed with the concept of discharging 4
.all the-liquid-wastes and we went through a larger capacity 5
evaporator that takes care of all the floor drains we have F
l
~6 right now and our releases are minimal, essentially, now.
, 7 We recycle just about 99 percent of all our water.
8 Our feedwater sparger replacement, we'll talk 9-about that in a little more detail tomorrow but we've 10 replaced-them three times.
11
-Torus modifications.
We have gone through 12 several phases of that.
Original phase was removal,of
. A) '
13~
baffles.- The second phase, we were involved with an owner's
-(,
14 group committee and we have made significant modifications 15
'in that also during that 1979 outage.
16 Internally we have modified the downcomers and
'17 the T quenchers, and externally we had a lot more supports 18-to the torus itself.
1 19 Seismic anchorage of equipment.
On the tour 20 today we saw some of the seismic anchors, especially on the 21
-isolation condenser.
Those are some pretty significant 22-
- mod i f ica,tions.
We are still upgrading some of the smaller 23-diameter tubing during this outage also.
i 24 MR. BENDER:
Can I get a clarification of a 25 couple of' items?
The high energy pipe break corrective
- (
i t'
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, 202-347-3700
, _ _ _ Nationwide Com0q 3 __.
_ 800 336 4646_,
l l
124939.0 21 L
BRT j~
bl 1
action is what?
Piping outside?
Are those the strengths --
2 MR. STETZ:
Partially.
The other part is 3
encapsulation.
Either piping encapsulation or, you know, 4
module-type capsulation.
5 MR. SHEWMON:
And encapsulation is to keep the 6
steam going.where it should or what?
7 MR. STETZ:
Keep whatever it -- whether it's 8.
liquid or steam, to keep it restrained so it doesn't cause 9
damage-in case there is a pipe break.
10 MR. BENDER:
And the torus modification, have 11 you done everything the owner's group recommended?
12 MR. STETZ:
Yes.
I believe we have.
We haven't f')
-(,
'13 done any modifications in the last two outages.
We 14 completed that previous to that.
15 MR. BENDER:
Okay.
Thank you.
16 MR. STETZ:
Environmental qualification of 17 equipment.
.The last outage we upgraded a lot of the 18 instrumentation.
Initially we went through the enclosures.
19 We saw those on the tour, motor control centers and 20 instrumentation racks, and subsequent to that we upgraded
-21 some of the instrumentation to qualified types.
22 Masonry walls -- masonry walls.
We have 23 completed all the reinforcements on those.
24 MR. MOELLER:
Excuse me, could you go back to 25 the previous slide, please?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
EW4>7R _-._., _,, Nationwide CovGip 80(M3(Hi646
24939.0 22 BRT
\\/
1 MR. STETZ:
Sure.
2 (Slide.)
3 MR. MOELLER: -The one with the Xs on it.
- 4 Perhaps my question can be addressed by the Staff later but, 5
like on item 3, " maintenance," you are rated in category 1.
6 In the previous period for September 1,
'82 to August 1,
'83, 7
you were category 1 for maintenance.
And the NRC says your 8
trend is consistent.
You were 1 and you are still 1.
But 9
on the second item, rad controls, you were 1 -- no, you are 10 2 -- well, I don't know which one this is because this says 11 you were category 2 from September 1,
'83 to February 28th 12 of '85.
o
(_)
13 MR. SHEWMON:
This was '81 to '82 --
14 MR. MOELLER:
You were 1, which to me is 15 downhill and the NRC says that's consistent.
And then the 16 first item, plant operations, was 2 in the previous rating 17 and 1 in the latest; and that's also consistent.
33 So, maybe when they speak they can --
19 MR. SHEWMON:
Do you want to say what you are 20 reading from?
21 MR. MOELLER:
I'm reading from the SALP report, 22 the memorandum from Tom Merley, Thomas Merley, of August 13, 23 1985, and he gives the numbers.
And I don't understand 24 when something is going down if that's consistent, if it 25 improves it's consistent, and if it stays the same it's ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202&37-27T3)
Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
24939.0 23 BRT 1
consistent.
2 MR. WENZINGER:
I'm Ed Wenzinger from Unit 1.
3
" Consistent" refers to the performance in the most recent 4
three months of the period as compared with the previous 5
three quarters of the year.
Or improving would then refer 6
to what happened in the last three months as would 7
decreasing.
It's the relative performance in the most 8
recent period of time.
9 MR. MOELLER:
Okay.
So I'm doing the wrong 10 comparison.
You are comparing the most recent three months 11 to the previous, say, nine months.
12 MR. WENZINGER:
If it has been a year, or --
13 MR. MOELLER:
Okay.
That's helpful.
14 One other question, and answer it in whatever 15 way is appropriate.
But INPO, when they do an evaluation 16 goes down roughly these same items with some different 17 titles.
Are you at liberty to tell me whether INPO's 18 evaluations jibe with this or are totally inconsistent?
I 19 mean, I know INPO keeps its reports to itself and they are 20 private to you and so forth.
But are you at liberty to 21 tell me whether this is roughly consistent with INPO?
22 MR. ROMBERG:
This is consistent with INPO.
But 23 INPO doesn't quite grade it like this.
They come in with 24 their overall findings and they'll discuss them but they 7,
25 don't really assess cat 1, cat 2, cat 3.
They come up with L.)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l v.w.rm wwwcomm mn-
24939.0 24 BRT 1
findings and lack of a finding means you are doing okay.
2 They also come in with their canned findings they find on 3
everybody.
We normally get their canned finding, whatever 4
it is,'because that's the bunch they are trying to do on 5
the industry over the year, but overall we are pretty 6
decent.
Consistent with performance shown here, we are 7
considered by INPO to be doing our job pretty well.
8 MR. MOELLER:
Okay.
That's helpful.
Thank you.
9 MR. KACICH:
I would add as well that our 10 corporate practice is to supply the summary INPO reports to 11 the NRC, even without being asked.
We ship them up.
12 MR. MOELLER:
Excellent.
That's good.
And this,
/
13 if -- again, without violating any -- whatever it is you'd 14 be violating, if the NRC Staff could just briefly com' ment 15 on your findings versus INPO's or any integration -- I mean 16 any correlation, that would be helpful to me.
17 MR. GRIMES:
This is Chris Grimes.
We'll see if 18 we can do that.
19 MR. MOELLER:
Without violating any of their 20 rules.
21 MR. SHEWMON:
Let me ask one other question on 22 the review.
This up here is for 12 months.
And if I 23 understood Ed's comment, it was that there is data every 24 three months to allow you to get a slope?
25 MR. WENZINGER:
Our look at -- Ed Wenzinger, 7
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
wwxnn wnnn.er covem, mm-
5 65 24939.0 25 BRT i
)
1 region 1.
Our look at how a plant has been doing recently 2
as compared with the previous period has more or less, in 3
the most recent periods -- we didn't do it in the previous 4
periods.
We don't take data every so many months.
We do a 5
self evaluation at the end of either 12 or 18 months and at 6
that point we go back and look at what happened all during 7
that period, and make an assessment at that time of what 8
happened in the most recent period as opposed to the 9
previous time.
It isn't done as we go along.
It's done, 10 generally, at the end of the period.
11 MR. SHEW"3N:
It's too late.
I don't understand 12 your answer yet, but we can do it tomorrow.
L_J 13 MR. GRIMES:
If I might, I think the easiest way 14 to describe it is that the trend that's described is during 15 the period as opposed to one period from the next, because 16 these aren't continuing, they are points.
You do a point 17 evaluation.
18 MR. SHEWMON:
They are not points.
They are 19 wide enough to get a trend within that period.
20 MR. GRIMES:
You are looking at performance over 21 a period of time but you are making that evaluation at a 22 point in time where you are looking back and you are trying 23 to describe or characterize a licensee's performance during 24 that period but not from one period to the next.
25 MR. SHEWMON:
And that period is over three
(.
.)
v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
v m.vm Nannnww coverne 900-1 4 6646
.24939.0 26 BRT
'l months?
Is that where ha got his three months that I 2
thought I heard the first time he answered?
L3 MR. GRIMES:
Ed's explanation of how region 1
~4 performs their job as contrasted to my experience during a 5'
SALP in region 5 -- it could be three months or it could be 6
over the last six months, depending on whether or not the 7-plant has been in an outage or whether they have been 8'
operating smoothly for a long period of time.
I don't 9
think there 's a fixed period of time associated with it.
10 MR. MOELLER:
Could I follow up, because I'm not 11 sure I understand the answer to Dr. Shewmon's question?
12 The SALP review, I assume, is a very formal review (s
q,)
13 involving a number of people and they evaluate for a year, 14 or 18 months or something, and they reach a decision?
15 Now, who is it that can suddenly judge whether 16 the plant is still performing consistent with the rating 17 they received?
Is that a single person?
Is it the 18 resident inspector?
19 MR. GRIMES:
No, sir.
It's a consensus of the 20 panel for performance during that period.
21 MR. MOELLER:
It's the same panel doing the SALP 22 review?
.23 MR. WENZINGER:
Yes.
That's correct.
24 MR. BENDER:
Could I throw a couple of comments 25 into the hopper?
It seems to me from looking at the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Ii RiMU7-2RT3)
Nationwide C9EiT3 80433H646
24939.0 27
.BRT l'
reports, that the reports themselves cover a period of time 2
and usually they are based on the record of circumstances
'l that have been observed.
4 I would interpret something that says it has not 5
been consistent as being, somewhere during that period of 6
_ time there has been a breakdown, or there has been a 7
general degradation over a long period and they have 8
suddenly changed around.
Is that the general picture?
9 MR. WENZINGER:
Or, Mr. Bender -- or it has 10 gotten better.
11 MR. BENDER:
Better or worse, but consistency 12 says the level is the same all the time.
(
13 MR. WENZINGER:
That's correct.
14 MR. BENDER:
And inconsistency says it is up and 15 down.
16 MR. WENZINGER:
That's correct.
We'll be 17 getting into what the various categories mean and how we go 18 about developing a SALP in our portion.
19 (Slide.)
20 MR. STETZ:
Security systems.
We have had some 21 significant upgrade since the beginning of plant life.
We 22 have had computerized systems, key cards -- you have all 23 been through it today.
24 The ATWS system, we installed that several 25 outages ago and that's comprised of an altarnate rod
,, g
(_)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3)2-347-3700 Nationwide Cov3Un 800 32X"3
24939.0 28 BRT (m) 1 insertion system, and a recirc pump trip circuitry.
t 2
We had some difficulties with that system the 3
first year that we operated with it and we made some 4
modifications during our cycle and this outage we are
-5 adding some additional circuitry to improve its performance 6
during degraded voltage conditions.
7 MR. BENDER:
The problems -- are you going to 8
say more about this tomorrow?
I won't ask a question now 9
if --
10 MR. STETZ:
No.
Ask it now, please.
11 MR. BENDER:
When you put in the recirc pump 12 trip, what have been its reliability characteristics?
Has
()
13 it worked every time?
14 MR. STETZ:
Yes, it has.
15 MR. BENDER:
Do you test it every so often?
16 MR. STETZ:
Yes, we do.
We have a testing 17 program for it.
It has a surveillance frequency.
Like I 18 say, we had some problems with it during the first year of 19 operation.
We discovered some things that were in the 20 circuitry that we didn't like and we have modified it since 21 t%en to make it more reliable for us, but, yes, we have 22 never gotten into an actual situation that should have 23 demanded this, but we have actuated it from problem 24 transients, voltage-wide primarily, voltage and frequency.
25 We do test it.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
24939.0 29 BRT ks' 1
MR. BENDER:
In addition to that you have now 2
put in this fast boron insertion --
3 MR. STETZ:
No, we have not.
4 MR. BENDER:
You have not done that?
5 MR. STETZ:
No.
6 MR. SHEWMON:
Are you going to?
7 MR. STETZ:
We are still looking at it.
8 MR. KACICH:
There's some information that 9
exists right now that suggests the importance of that 10 modification might not warrant installing it.
11 MR. BENDER:
Does the Staff have a position on 12 that?
,mk,)
13 MR. SHEA:
Do you want to address it?
~
14 MR. GRIMES:
What's the question?
15 MR. BENDER:
The boron insertion on the BWks.
16 MR. SHEA:
Where we stand on it.
17 MR. GRIMES:
Mr. Bender, we don't have a 18 position at this time because we are evaluating it and I 19 don't know that we have all the information available to 20 make a judgment.
About the only thing I can say about it 21 is that it is one of a number of topics that we are 22 gathering the Licensees' positions and Staff's views in 23 order to make a judgment about what if any corrective 24 action should be taken.
25 MR. BENDER:
The reason for raising the question ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
KiR-95F-3700 Nationwide CovGU~3 800-336-6646
24939.0 30 BRT A
tx/
1 is really I thought at one time the Staff had become pretty 2
adamant about the need for that fast boron insertion.
And 3
now there seems to be -- as I read this discussion -- some 4
inclination to back away.
I don't have a feeling whether 5
it's good or bad.
6 MR. GRIMES:
I'd rather not prejudice the Staff's 7
position by saying we have an inclination one way or the 8
other except to note that we are taking a look at the 9
effects, as they are exhibited in the probabilistic 10 analysis, to get a measure of the importance of fast boron 11 insertion and boron insertion rate.
We'll present that 12 along with the Staff's views as they evolve in the ATWS g
i,.
13 rule, and try and make a considered judgment once all the 14 facts are known.
15 MR. WARD:
Is the issue here whether the system 16 should be made automatic or not?
17 MR. GRIMES:
I think it's rate.
18 MR. WARD:
86 gallons a minute?
19 MR. GRIMES:
80 versus 40 gallons a minute 20 insertion rate.
21 MR. WARD:
But you have systems installed, your 22 emergency procedures -- do they have the operators using it 23 in an ATWS situation?
24 MR. STETZ:
Yes, it does.
25 MR. ROMBERG:
A couple of things have happened ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Com 800 336 6646
-24939.0 31 E~"
5' 1
on this issue.
First you talk about reliability.
The only 2
nonreliability has been spurious actuations.
It has never 3
failed when it wasn't supposed to.
It's operated a few 4
times when it wasn't supposed to, but obviously that's in 5
the safe direction.
6 As far as the 86 gallons versus 43 gallons per 7
minute injection, a couple of things have happened since 8
the Staff's earlier position that.
One is in our emergency 9
operating procedure we go along with the General Electric 10 emergency procedure guides and they provide some actions 11 for providing guidance to the operator for promptly putting 12 the boron in when it's needed.
The other thing it did, as A(_)
13 part of that study we were able to demonstrate that not 14 putting it in right away turned out not to be as bad as we 15 thought; it was really based on tords capability, how long 16 you could blow steam in the torus before you got yourself 17 in trouble.
Through certain actions there you could buy 18 yourself enough time to get the borons in.
19 Between that and other work we are doing, we 20 feel that we are in a position to convince the Staff of our 21 position that we do not want to do that extensive work.
22 The system is a safe and fine one.
23 If it can be demonstrated to us that that is in 24 the interest of the health and safety of the public, we'll 25 do it, but right now our position is it's not necessary.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-M7 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
24939.0 32 BRT
~'
1 MR. RARD:
How quickly can that system be 2
activated manually?
3 MR. ROMBERG:
How quickly?
It's as quick as 4
doing that.
The key is in the switch.
How quickly will 5
the operator do it?
He has specific guidance that tells 6
him to do it at a specific event, and I believe that's 7
torus temperature on what would be an ATWS -- when he gets 8
a certain torus temperature, he goes ahead and does it, 9
that's it.
If he has other reason to believe he ought to 10 be doing it, he does it, too.
11 MR. WARD:
But the system is operable?
The key 12 is in the switch?
(f 13 MR. ROMBERG:
The key is in the switch?
14 MR. SHEWMON:
The system would inject at 40 15 gallons or --
16 MR. ROMBERG:
43, 43 gallons per minute flat, on 17 a single pump.
And that will get you shutdown before you 18 exceed the torus temperature level.
19 MR. BENDER:
The issues were two:
One was 20 whether there was the automatic actuation, and the other 21 was the rate.
It seems both questions are still hanging up.
22 MR. ROMBERG:
That is true.
We have a position 23 as a utility, and we are hoping that we can convince the 24 NRC Staff that our position is a valid and sound one.
25 MR. MOELLER:
On the pump trip, as I recall the s
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 1?00 N3tinnwide coverage ROM %/M4
F 24939.0 33 BRT 1
history, the plant -- the utilities seemed to drag their 2
feet about putting that in.
Where -- when did you do it?
3 Were you one of the first or the last or the middle?
4 MT. STETZ:
I think we did pretty early.
5 MR. ROMBERG:
Was it '80?
We'd have to go back 6
and look, but I think we are one of the first ones.
I 7
thought it was '82 or '80 outage.
We did it relatively 8
early.
9 Because we had a bunch of scrams as a result of 10 that thing because we ended up with spurious trips.
They 11 were solid state components, and there were differences 12 between actual plant conditions,and supply voltage from the
(_,)
13 battery bus.
14 MR. MOELLER:
What was falsely tripping it?
15 MR. ROMBERG:
It was outside the parameters of 16 the power supply.
It exceeded the maximum voltage and the 17 flip-flop circuits decide to flip-flop whichever way they 18 wanted, and if they went the wrong way the trip pumps and 19 it gave you the scram.
It was as simple as that; and if 20 they didn't get you on the deionazation they got you on the 21 reionization.
What's supposed to trip it is 1150 pounds 22 pressure, and what's the other signal -- low, low level.
23 Reactor level.
24 MR. KACICH:
On the boron inspection system the 25 final rule as it applies to Millstone 1 doesn't raise the
-s (v)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cm 800 336 4 646
24939.0 34 BRT 1
issue of it being automatic, strictly an issue of it being 2
the' rate, 43 or 86.
3 MR. STETZ:
Plant process computer.
We went 4
through a software upgrade several outages ago and right 5
now we are in a process of completely changing the computer.
6 out.
We have gone through some modifications on the room.
7 We have installed a UPS system for it, and we have recently 8
awarded the contract to General Electric, and we should be 9
changing the computer out in the 1987 outage.
10 Plant specific simulator, you have seen that 11 today, and that should be in service the first quarter of 12 next year.
That should be a great benefit to us, 13 especially in the areas that the generic simulator had some 14 shortcomings; in the voltage distribution networks and all 15 the auxiliary systems, the off gas system, turbinq cystems.
i 16 They are all a little bit different.
So that that should 17 be a great help to the operators.
18 Appendix R modifications.
Many of the 19 modifications are complete:
fire detection instrumentation 20 has been installed in the plant, hose stations have been 21 modified, additional water suppressica systems have been 22 upgraded, fire doors and dampers have been upgraded to the 23 latest fire ratings, and we are continuing with those 24 modifications.
25 Public alerting system.
Post-TMI, we wont i
~J ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l R %fs-3700 Nationwide coverage 800-336-6646
24939.0 35 BRT
/~'l S
\\-
1 through the alerting system upgrade and we've installed all 2
the speakers in the area.
The towns have participated with
~
3 that.in the last several drills.
4 MR. BENDER:
Can I go back to appendix R for 5
just a minute?
Are there any open issues between you and 6
the regulatory Staff over compliance with appendix R?
7 MR. KACICH:
We just got a SER from the NRC on 8
November 6 of this year, just the last couple of weeks, 9
which granted all the exemptions that we had sought over 10 the last couple of years.
11 What we haven't filed yet but will, probably in 12 the next couple of months, is another series of exemptions
()
13 that will.take into account the guidance in generic letter l
14 8501 that I understand is going to get finally blessed off l
15 by the Commission here in the near term.
I would classify 16 those as not too controversial; we are just anticipating 17 issuance of that and are going to agree to it; but in order 18 to get the paperwork cleaned up it will require another 19 round of exemption on relatively minor items including fire 20 doors and dampers and that kind of thing.
21 MR. BENDER:
I presume the staf f will tell us 22 something about the modern interpretation of appendix R.
I 23 don't expect it from you --
24 MR. KACICH:
That's good.
25 MR. GRIMES:
Do you want us to say something now?
N.s)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
24939.0 36 BRT f
(>
1 MR. BENDER:
When it's opportune for you.
It's, 2
kind of a late hour.
3 MR. GRIMES:
We'll wait until tomorrow when we 4
are fresh.
5 MR. MOELLER:
On the public alerting system; how 6
far out?
7 MR. STETZ:
10 miles?
8 MR. KACICH:
10 miles is the sirens.
9 MR. MOELLER:
Sirens, what, on poles?
10 MR. KACICH:
356 of them systemwide including 11 Haddam Neck and Millstone.
12 MR. ROMBERG:
It's also a speaker system the rx
. (,)
13-local towns can make announcements on; it works real good 14 during hurricanes?
l 15 MR. MOELLER:
Yes.
You do use it as a disaster 16 warning?
l 17 MR. ROMBERG:
They are at the control of the 18 officials, not under our direct control.
We have a 19
. notification change including the beepers you saw in the 20 control room to permit there use in the system --
l 21 MR. MOELLER:
So your emergency system is 22 integrated into the total local system?
That's excellent.
23 MR. ROMBERG:
We paid for it all, but it's at 24 their cisposal.
Actually, they paid for it; they are rate 25 payers.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
r
>24939.0 37 BRT o
t) 1 MT. STETZ:
Scram discharge volume modifications.
2 They were complete in 1982.
At that time we went to the 3
two instrument volumes.
We separated the north volume from 4
the south volume.
The original design had a 2-inch pipe 5
connecting them and that was where the Browns Ferry problen 6
came in.
7 We added redundant valves on the drains, on the 8
drains from the instrument volumes and on the vents, and we 9
replaced the level instrumentation with magnetrol level 10 switches.
We hadn't had any problems with those and, 11 although the Staf f requested diverse instrumentation, we 12 were able to justify that what we had worked just fine and
()
13 there could not be any improving by going to any other type 14 of device.
And that was accepted.
15 MR. WARD:
What is the magnetron?
What's the 16 active element in the magnetron?
17 MT. STETZ:
It's a float switch.
18 MR. WARD:
It is a float?
19 MR. STETZ:
Yes.
It is.
And although there 20 were some problems with magnetrons -- they were a different 21 style; they were a vertical-type float chamber whereas we 22 had the horizontal ones and the qualified ones are also 23 horizontal chambers.
Again, we haven't had any problems.
24 It's about as simple a device as you can get, and that's 25 exactly what we wanted.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
24939.0 38 BRT-(_.)
1 Our condenser retube, September 1972 we had a 2
chloride intrusion incident.
We originally had aluminum 3
brass tubes.
We wound up with some significant salt water 4
intrusion on a startup and we had to replace a significant 5
number of components in the reactor at that time.
6 After that we went to copper / nickel condenser, 7
70:30, and we have been using that ever since.
And now we 8
have plans for titanium condenser.
We are planning on 9
doing that in 1987, and that should be a complete modular 10 design, tube sheets will be changed out and tubes and tube 11 supports as a complete module.
We feel that that will help 12 out significantly in the area of radiation exposure; when
(()
13 we have leaks right now we have to downpower about 60 14 percent because of rad levels and go in and try to find the 15 tube leaks.
And we use a number of different methods.
We 16 either use helium or we use soap.
p 17 There are still some leaks that are beyond the 18 threshold of finding and it creates problems.
It also l
19 creates problems in the area of rad wastes because it 20 depletes the deep bed demineralizers; and that is another 21 one of our driving concerns:
reducing rad waste volumes.
22 So we feel the combination should be of great 23 benefit to us.
24 MR. MOELLER:
Roughly in terms of the i
25 demineralizers, what life shortening are you talking about?
(~)s u.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33 H 646
24939.0 39 BRT
(_)
1 How 1,ong do they normally last?
In that if you get sea 2
water, what does that do?
3 MR. STETZ:
Normally we run about -- depletion 4
rates of half a percent a day.
If we wind up with a tube 5
leak we can accelerate that to 1-1/2 percent, 2 percent a 6
day.
7 MR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
8 MR. STETZ:
So it's quite significant.
9 (Slide.)
10 Post-TMI action items:
Modifications that were 11 installed after TMI.
12 Post-accident sample system, we passed that on
( })
13 the way going by the feed pumps.
It's a system that 14 chemists use to sample various points in the reactor 15 coolant system.,Also containment air samples.
16 Our emergency operations facility, our EOF, we 17 didn't get a chance to see today, but that's our concrete 18 building right outside the simulator.
That was also a 19 modification.
20 Public alerting system, we spoke a little bit l
21 about that.
22 The hydrogen monitor, we installed that last 23 outage and we've had significant problems with it.
We have 24 been one of the leaders in the industry, working with an 25 owners' group to try and iron out some of those problems.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 NationwMe Coverage 800 336 6646
r 24939.0 40 BRT 7
s.)
1 It comes down to a drifting instrumentation.
We worked 2
with the vendor and have been making significant 3
improvements in the equipment.
It should be of benefit to 4
the whole industry.
5 MR. SHEWMON:
Are you trying to detect whether 6
you are above or below 5 percent or something an order of 7
magnitude lower?
8 MR. STET 2:
No, this primarily has to do with 9
-- normally there's no hydrogen, okay?
So normally it's 10 reading zero.
When we go to do a surveillance on it we 11 inject a certain known hydrogen sample and see what the 12 response is.
And what we find is that it's outside the
()
13 manufacturer's tolerances.
And that's what we have been 14 trying to correct.
15 It was initially installed as a monitor that 16 would be passive, unless you needed it post-accident but 17 we've tied it in also with an oxygen monitor.
Our original 18 oxygen monitor was not qualified for containment pressures 19 during an accident, so we have been operating it in a 20 continuous fashion.
So consequently, we have learned about 21 the problems a lot sooner than other people would have.
22 MR. SHEWMOll:
We try not to design plants.
23 Since you are interested in whether or not you have a 24 combustible mixture, which is a relatively high level of 25 hydrogen, I'm surprised that drift problems bother you,
'\\v ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
24939.0' 41 BRT 1
unless you are trying to read things of f it it wasn't 2
designed for.
But that is too detailed.
3 Let's go on.
4 MR. STETZ:
We are trying to match the 5
manufacturer's specifications.
Whatever he says it should 6
do, we try to see whether it can do it or not.
And that's 7
where the problem comes in.
l 8
MR. KACICH:
But I believe it is true that it's 9
still accurate enough.to distinguish from a detonable 10 environment to one that isn't.
It's not like it's that far 11 off, but we are trying to get it to perform as designed.
12 MR. MOELLER:
And this is in the dry well?
()
13 MR. STETZ:
No.
Outside the dry well.
It's in 14 the reactor building, the monitor itself.
And it samples l
15 the containment atmosphere.
16 MR. MOELLER:
You mentioned that the owners' 17 group -- this is both BWR and PWR7 Or just BWR?
l 18 MT. STETZ:
I believe they were representatives 19 from BWRs and PWRs.
20 MR. MOELLER:
If you read the LERs, hydrogen 21 monitors are one of the leaders in instigating LERs in 22 terms of air monitoring equipment.
It seems with so many 23 people working on it, perhaps some day we'll get a solution; 24 but it is a utility-wide, nuclear industry problem.
No l
l 25 question about it.
7sO I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, EM01 D2 -
Mk J M.-
24939.0 42 BRT g
(_
1 MR. STETZ:
Yes, it is.
2 High range radiation monitors.
We installed 3
those.
We have two radiation monitors in the containment 4
and they're out in the control room.
5 Post-accident monitoring instrumentation:
That 6
includes the high range rad monitors and the stack high 7
range rad monitors also.
8 I might point out that some of these latest high 9
technology instrumentation systems have been some of the 10 most difficult to debug and make reliable.
I see it as an 11 industry-wide problem, with the sophistication that we use 12 in using the new technologies to develop these things, that
()
13 sometimes they just don't have the reliability and the 14 testing that maybe should go on before they are used out in 15 the plants.
16 MR. MOELLER:
Are you talking about the 17 instrumentation required in reg guide 197?
Is this what 18 you are talking about?
You say " monitoring."
Can you give 19 me some specifics?
What specific types of monitors?
20 MR. STETZ:
Stack high range monitor.
Okay?
21 That's one of the difficult ones we have had:
State of the 22 art electronics.
We wind up with spurious type of problems l
l 23 on some of these items and our technicians, I believe are l
24 the best in the industry, and, still, we work with the 25 manufacturers and we have a difficult time resolving some i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l!02 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
24939.0 43 BRT 1
of these problems.
It's the type of thing where it might 2
work for two months and then you wind up with a spurious f
3 signal on it.
4 MR. BENDER:
Could I ask about a couple of old 5
problems that may not exist anymore but were troublesome 6
ones?
Did Millstone have problems with the channel box 7
erosion, issue or were they one of those that -- do you 8
remember that problem from way back when?
9 MR. STETZ:
Channel box?
10 MR. GRIMES:
Channel box wear.
11 MR. ROMBERG:
Nope.
Not familiar.
If it was a 12 problem we'd know about it.
It didn't happen here, rm
(_)
13 MR. BENDER:
It didn't happen here.
14 There were some other places, inside the reactor 15 vessel, where vibration caused some difficulties.
16 MR. ROMBERG:
I am familiar with the problem.
17 You'll find we were one of the older cores with lower flows, 18 and didn't really have the problem.
Again, the time 19 margin --
20 MR. BENDER:
It was just a matter of refreshing 21 my memory.
Thank you.
22 MR. STETZ:
I think it had to do with bypass 23 flows and flow holes and induced pressures --
24 MR. MOELLER:
Back on the hydrogen monitors, 25 what would you do, post-accident, if the hydrogen
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- o2 347 37ao Ne@ overage 800 336-4646
24939.0 44 BRT 1
concentration in the reactor building was approaching 2
critical limit?
Do you purge?
Or wh'at?
You don't have 3
igniters or anything like that?
4 MR. STETZ:
First of all, we don't have any air 5
in the containment.
We.are completely inert.
We have a 6
nitrogen pump back system.
7 MR. MOELLER:
So you'd just add more nitrogen?
8 MR. STETZ:
Dilution; yes.
9 MR. MOELLER:
And dilute it with nitrogen.
10 MR. STETZ:
Yes.
11 MR. MOELLER:
On your EOF, which, as you mention, 12 we did not have an opportunity to tour, could you tell us a
()
13 moment -- or spend a moment telling us about the protective 14 features for the people who are -in there?
I mean, how many 15 people can be in there and what sort of contamination, 16 airborne contamination is it designed to filter out'or does 17 it have charcoal -- what does it have?
18 MR. STETZ:
It essentially has a standby gas 19 treatment system on it that it can operate closed cycle.
I 20 can't give you any numbers right now --
21 MR. MOELLER:
So it is a heap of igniters with 22 charcoal on the closed recirculating system?
23 MT. STETZ:
Yes.
l 24 MR. MOELLER:
And what is the basis for the 25
. design of that system?
Is it coordinated or correlated
,_s k-)
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i-R7AP3.{f?00 Nationwide Com 800-3364646
24939.0 45 BRT I')
k-I with what each of the three units might put out?
What is 2
the source term?
3 MR. STETZ:
I couldn't tell you that.
4 MR. KACICH:
I don't have all the details, 5
although the concrete, as I recall, is two feet and the 6
other protective features are high.
7 We designed it at a stage where that was the way 8
it was being recommended.
9 If I could suggest, there's a fellow who is 10 going to be making a presentation on this point tomorrow 11 and he's got a lot of deta.11 and slides and everything on 12 this.
()
13 MR. MOELLER:
Fine.
I'll wait.
14 MR. KACICH:
Thank you.
15 MR. STETZ:
Other initiatives that we have 16 implemented were the emergency operating procedures, and 17 that was a significant effort on our part.
We wound up 18 sending operators out to the simulator twice in order to 19 familiarize them with them.
These are symptom-based 20 procedures that are very good.
We are still doing work 21 with the owners' group on that.
They are working on an 22 additional revision and we should be incorporating that 23 next year.
24 Emergency planning --
25 MR. WARD:
Are we going to hear more about the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cum 800 336 6646
24939.0 46
'BRT
! -)
1 emergency procedures?
The EOPs?
2 MR. KACICH:
That will be covered tomorrow; yes.
3 MR. WARD: _ For instance, can we see a sample of 4
the actual procedures?
5 MR. KACICH:
We can certainly bring them in.
6 MR. STETZ:
We can, sure.
7 MR. WARD:
I'd like to.
8 MR. STETZ:
Emergency planning.
We have gone 9
through a significant upgrade in that area also, both with 10 dedicated people from corporate and dedicated people here 11 at the plant.
That's their sole function and that's worked 12 out very well.
()
13 Upgraded shift staffing levels, we've added an 14 additional RO to every control room, and also, the SCO now 15 is a senior licensed.
16 So we either have the shift supervisor which is 17 STA trained or the SCO.
They have both been STA qualified.
18 MR. WARD:
Could you review that a minute, then?
19 You have at Unit 1 -- what's the complement of licensed 20 operators?
21 MR. STETZ:
In the control room we have two 22 licensed reactor operators at present.
We have a senior 23 control operator, also.
And we have a shift supervisor.
24 He's also a senior reactor operator.
25 MR. SHEWMON:
You have a what?
I didn't hear l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
24939.0 47 BRT y
/
1 you.
2 MR. STETZ:
Two reactor operators --
3 MR. SHEWMON:
What was the last individual?
4 MR. STETZ:
The last individual *was a shift 5
supervisor, and the shift supervisor and supervising 6
control operator both have SRO licenses and they are both STA 7
qualified.
8 MR. WARD:
They are both STA qualified.
9 MR. STETZ:
Yes, sir.
10 MR. ROMBERG:
They are not both required to be, 11 though.
At least one of those are required to.
12 MR. WARD:
You mean under your rules.
I )
13 MR. ROMBERG:
Under our rules.
14 MR." WARD:
You are don't have a separate STA?
15 MR. ROMBERG:
We don't have a separate STA.
I 16 understand that's still an item --
17 MR. SHEWMON:
Do you have -- what's SCO?
18 MR. STETZ:
Supervising control room operator.
19 MR. WARD:
An assistant.
20 MR. ROMBERG:
Yes.
He's number 2.
21 MR. MOELLER:
When we toured the control room, 22 what, of Unit 27 23 MR. ROMBERG:
1.
24 MR. MOELLER:
1 -- there were sliding doors it 25 looked like so that one and two people can go back and g_3
(,I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
FliA%7.Kd)
Nationwide CovGce a 800 336 6646
24939.0 48 BRT
/
(_/
1 forth. -What -- under what conditions would they be going 2
back and forth?
3 MR. STETZ:
There's a men's room in the back of 4
the Unit 1 control room and that's why they go back and 5
forth.
6 (Laughter.)
7 MR. MOELLER:
That's a pretty good excuse.
8 MR. STETZ:
We don't share operators.
The only 9
thing we do share are fire brigade operators.
10 MR. ROMBERG:
And we don't have operators from 11 the other unit coming over to shoot the breeze.
Normally 12 those doors are closed --
(( )
13 MR. MOELLER:
They are closed today.
14 MR. ROMBERG:
If Unit 1 is in an outage and they 15 have lost cooling on this side because of lost air 16 conditioning, because service water is out, they may open 17 it to steal air conditioning from the other side, but the 18 understanding is if you have a problem with one of the two 19 units, it is shut right away.
20 MR. MOELLER:
So the air systems for the two 21 control rooms are separate?
22 MR. ROMBERG:
They are separate.
23 MR. MOELLER:
What about the air intakes?
24 MR. ROMBERG:
They are separate.
25 MR. MOELLER:
Separate air intakes and they each O
(_/
4 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
24939.0 49 BRT 1
have their own emergency recirculating system?
2 MR. ROMBERG:
I think some of that will be 3
covered more tomorrow.
The Unit 1 one is not -- a 4
modification is coming in the next outage to bring it up to 5
the standard.
Unit 3 is there.
6 MR. MOELLER:
That was in the materi'al we read.
7 MR. SHEWMON:
You said both SRO and SCOs were 8
all STA qualified?
9 MR. ROMBERG:
One of the two has to be.
10 MR. SHEWMON:
One of the three, I gather.
11 MR. ROMBERG:
In most cases on Unit 1 both are 12 but not required to be.
13 MR. SHEWMON:
Does this mean they have a degree?
14 MR. ROMBERG:
They don't have a degree.
What we 15' i did on most of the people, we sent them to the Memphis 16 State program, both the phase l'and phase 2, if you are 17 familiar with that program.
So they have the equivalent 18 knowledge, including management programs, et cetera -- it's 19 a little short of a degree.
20 Some of them are going ahead and completing that 21 program to get a degree on their own although we are not 22 requiring that.
But that's what we've done.
That's what 23 we submitted our program to the NRC way back early as this 24 requirement came about and that's the direction we are
,7 25
- headed, t
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
?0? 147-1700 Natinnwide Coverage 80(k11/HM46
[E 24939.0 50 BRT-(
1 Where we are going to go from here, because I 2
understand the Commission has some problems with that, we'll 3
do whatever we have to do.
Unit 3 is a little different.
4 That's a~different program.
5 MR. WARD:
I'm sorry if I missed ~it this 6
afternoon, but is there a site supervisor on shift?
I mean 7
for all three units?
8 MR. STETZ:
No.
W'e are broken up into
'9 individual units.
10 MR. WARD:
So if the shift supervisor at Unit I 11 has a problem he gets on the telephone to the operations 12 manager or something?
Is that it?
'(
)
13 MR. STETZ:
He has all the people available to 14 himself.
He has a duty officer available, he has the whole 15 emergency organization available to him.
I don't know what
-16 type of problem you are' talking about.
17 MR. WARD:
Well, if he wants to consult, he 18 wants to talk to his boss, who is his boss?
19 MT. STETZ:
He has a duty officer representative
.20 or he can talk to his supervisor, his direct supervisor, 21 which is the operations supervisor.
22 MR. WARD:
How does the duty officer system work?
23 MR. STETZ:
The duty officer is an extension of H24 the unit superintendent; he's his representative during off 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> and we go through a rotating schedule.
On Unit 1, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
RM347 3700 Nationwide CovGr3 800 33MM6
24939.0 51 BRT 1
all the people are SRO qualified and they are all engineers.
2 And they go through a training program.
They are 3
hand-selected.
4 MR. ROMBERG:
They are on beeper systems, they 5
are immediately available.
That's part of -- I guess we 6
pay them a little extra for that.
He has someone 7
immediately available to him because he can't count on his 8
boss being there.
9 MR. SHEWMON:
Does he stay out of parties that 10 get too loud?
11 MR. ROMBERG:
That too.
12 MR. SHEWMON:
At least too alcoholic?
13 MR. ROMBERG:
That too.
He is part of the 14 emergency plan.
Those people -- while you are on call you 15 !
conduct your life accordingly.
I 16 MR. BENDER:
Does that emergency procedure 17 development planning business up there include 18 consideration of severe accidents?
19 MR. STET 2:
The emergency planning?
Yes, it 20 does.
That's where we go through our exercise with the 21 local towns and the state and the NRC also on an annual 22 basis.
23 MR. BENDER:
Setting aside that, which is more 24 of a public relations kind of thing, with perhaps some 25 evacuation planning thrown in, what about the questions of
-s ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3Tl@
Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
24939.0 52 BRT
(/
1 what to do in-plant, in the event that you might have a 2
TMI-2 type of accident?
Are there emergency procedures 3
dealing with that kind of thing?
4 MR. STETZ:
We do.
Those are the emergency 5
operating procedures and those go.well beyond a 6
designed-basis type problem.
We really don't know -- have 7
to know what caused the problem.
They are just based on 8
symptoms.
And for a BWR that's pretty simple.
They are 9
trained on those and --
10 MR. BENDER:
Well, for example, GE has been 11 talking lately of the fire engine concept as the way of 12 having a reserve water supply available just in case.
()
13 Do you have those kinds of procedures in your --
14 MR. STETZ:
We sure do.
We have connections.
15 We had them identified.
We have tools available.
We have 16 the available fittings necessary to connect on a fire hose 17 from a pumper.
18 MR. ROMBERG:
And the procedural steps in our 19 procedures.
20 MR. BENDER:
That's what I want to know.
Thank 21 you.
22 MR. STETZ:
Those procedures incorporate all the 23 things that an operator would like to have proceduralized 24 in the event that he really has some difficulty.
It gives 25 him the guidance; he doesn't have to go digging through the i
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33 6 6646
24939.0 53 BRT i )'
\\-
1 control wiring diagrams or anything else in the middle of 2
the night.
Those are the things that -- they have been 3
researched once, they have been proven to be valuable, and 4
they have been documented.
5 MR. BENDER:
Thank you.
6 MR. SHEWMON:
Is that the end of your 7
presentation?
8 MR. STETZ:
Yes.
That's it unless you have any 9
additional questions in any area.
10 MR. SHEWMON:
I think we have asked enough.
11 Let's go on.
They are not shy.
12 Chris?
t's
'(_)
13 MR. GRIMES:
Mr. Shedlosky, the resident 14 inspector, is going to give the presentation on the history 15 of plant experience.
16 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
Good afternoon, I am John 17 Shediosky, the NRC resident inspector assigned by the 18 region 1 office to the Millstone 1 and 2 site.
Thank you 19 for inviting me to speak before the Subcommittee.
20 I'm going to present an overview of the 21 Millstone Unit 1 plant operating experience through 22 discussions of the results of the NRC systematic assessment 23 of licensee performance.
24 This program is an integrated NRC staff effort 25 to periodically collect information and evaluate licensee O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 3700 Nadonwide Coverase M33H646
-24939.0 54 BRT
("N X-)
1 pe rformance.
2 (Slide.)
3 The program supplements the normal regulatory 4
process used to ensure compliance with NRC regulations.
It 5
is intended to be diagnostic enough for the rational 6-allocation of NRC resources and to be meaningful in the 7
licensee's efforts to improve safety.
8 (Slide.)
9 There have been five appraisals made of the 10 licensee's performance at Millstone Unit.l.
11 The first appraisal period started on July 1, 12 1979, and the last ended on February 28, 1985.
We have
()
13 found that there's a high degree of management attention 14 and involvement directed at the safe -- at safe operation 15 of the Millstone Unit I reactor.
16 The SALP ratings reflect commitment to a high 17 level of performance on the part of the licensee.
18 Utility management has aggressively pursued.
19 problems which affect safety or reliability.
The licensee 20 has developed a staff with the size and resources needed to 21 assure safe plant operations.
22 Corporate and site management are involved in 23 plant operations, and have goals established for good 24 performance.
Each appraisal has also addressed areas for 25 improvement; our latest appraisal has concluded that the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80G 3364646
24939.0 55 BRT.
(~J
'i
(
1 licensee must strengthen certain activities associated with 2
plant design' changes.
These include the need for better 3
controls, assuring thorough testing of new and modified 4
systems, and increased management attention for assuring 5
the quality required in a solid radioactive waste 6
transportation.
7-Previous appraisals had identified areas needing 8
-improvement such as the reliability of systems associated 9
with the emergency gas turbine generator, maintenance of 10 proper valve positions, and the station's security system.
11 And these have been acted upon.
12 overall, in spite of these weaknesses, licensee tx i
)
13 performance is excellent.
14 Each appraisal 1s conducted by a Board 15 consisting of region 1 and NRR personnel, who assess 16 licensee performance in nine functional areas which are 17 significant to nuclear safety.
18 (Slide.)
19 I'll go through the Board results for each of 20 these areas and highlight strengths and weaknesses.
The 21 discussion will cover 1979 to present.
22 Yes, sir?
23 MR. SHEWMON:
How much of this is done on-site 24 and how much off-site?
25 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
The data collection is done ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
-~
24939.0 56
- BRT o
(_)
1 primarily on-site, although we do get inputs from the 2
people in NRR who do deal with the utility through the 3
project manager.
The board itself is held of f-site in the 4
region 1 offices, the board evaluation.
The inspections 5
are done on-site or in the corporate office.
6 The SALP process itself does not support special 7
inspections.
What we do is use the data from our normal 8
routine, ongoing inspection program.
That data comes from 9
myself and from other inspectors who visit the site.
10 MR. WARD:
So of the board members, you as a 11 resident inspector are the only one who is furnishing the 12 firsthand information, I guess; is that it?
()
13 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
The board members primarily us 14 consist of NRC management.
I am on the board.
15 The Board also uses -- what's the proper word 16
-- consultants to the board or additional personnel who do 17 offer their impressions of the utility performance.
These 18 are other people who have firsthand information of 19 utilities performance.
20 Other people are regional managers.
They do 21 have firsthand impressions of utility performance from 22 their visits to the site.
23 MR. WENZINGER:
We have both region-based as 24 well as resident inspectors who both do inspections on-site.
25 And the regional based inspectors do provide their input to
(,,J
~
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-33HM6
24939.0 57
'BRT s
ss 1
the SALP process.
Roughly half are covered by 2
regional-based inspectors and the other half are covered 3
primarily by the resident; but the resident does touch on 4
all the areas.
-5 MR. WARD:
I see.
Thank you.
6 MR. MOELLER:
And are the results of the 7
~ systematic evaluation program, the integrated plant safety 8
assessment review and the integrated safety assessment 9
program, to name three, are they fed into this in any 10 systematic way?
11 MR. GRIMES:
Dr. Moeller, if I might, Chris 12 Grimes from NRR.
That's embodied in NRR's input to this
()
13 process because it's the heart of the normal or routine 14 licensing activities associated with this particular plant.
15 MR. MOELLER:
So through NRR that's fed in?
16 MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
17 MR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
18 As a person -- I can't even keep up with 19 acronyms, and I really don't understand why we have -- or 20 why you, the NRC Staff, has so many different reviews.
And 21 I don't really see how each one is separate.
But I do see 22 that SALP is a total, final bottom line.
I do see that.
23 MR. GRIMES:
When we go into our part of the 24 presentation, I'd like to introduce that by explaining the 25 evolution of all of these programs for this plan.
O V
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M2-347-3700 Nationwide Cm 800 336-6646
F l
24939.0 58
-ERT I)
N' 1
MR. MOELLER:
Good.
I'll wait.
And I know this 2
was only one of, what, two plants in one of --
l 3
MR. GRIMES:
In the pilot program for the 4
integrated safety assessment program.
l 5
MR. SHEWMON:
I thought you did very well at 6
reading them off.
7 MR. MOELLER:
Well, I had written them down.
8 MR. SHEWMON:
Please go on.
9 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
Each functional area is assessed 10 by the Board using seven evaluation criteria.
11 (Slide.)
12 The data used are provided by NRC personnel who
/-(,)/
13 have reviewed the licensee's testimonies during the 14 assessment period.
Those reviews may have been conducted 15 during on-site inspections, during management conferences 16 with the licensee, during licensing meetings or in the 17 review of licensing documents.
18 (Slide.)
19 The Board, then, rates each functional area 20 according to one of three performance criteria.
They are 21 defined as follows:
The catetary 1, reduced NRC attention 22 may be appropriate; licensee management attention and 23 involvement are aggressive and oriented towards nuclear 24 safety.
Licensee resources are ample, and effectively used 25 so that a high level of performance with safety is being 7_
L)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
24939.0-59 BRT.
O k'
1 achieved.
2 Category 2:
NRC attention should be maintained 3
as normal levels.
Licensee attention and involvement are 4
evident and are concerned with nuclear safety.
Licensee 5
resources are adequate and reasonably. effective, so that 6
satisfactory performance with respect to safety is being 7
achieved.
8 And finally, category 3:
Both NRC and licensee 9
attention should be increased.
Licensee management 10 attention or involvement is acceptable and considers 11 nuclear safety.
But weaknesses are evident; licensee 12 resources appear to be strained or not effectively used.
O 12 re,
ir2 14 MR. SHEWMON:
Do 'you try to grade on the curve, 15 so that you have as many peop'le in category 1 or 3 as you 16 do in 3?
Or do you have your subjective standard which you 17 feel.is independent of that?
18 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
Since I only sit on the 19 Millstone 1 and 2 boards, I'd like Mr. Wenzinger to respond.
20 MR. WENZINGER:
I sit on 12 boards since that's 21 how many plants I have.
I would characterize it the way 22 you did the latter.
23 MR. SHEWMON:
You feel if things were going well, 24 most of them could be 1s?
25 MR. WENZINGER:
Yes.
There's no reason why they ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
SBD3Mi2 -
9ttsicC'b@nr3 CIB C
7.
24939.0 60 BRT i
em
(
)
l I
couldn't.
It turns out, of course, that's not the case,
)
2 but it could be.
3 MR. MOELLER:
Are you in the same frame of 4
thought as INPO, in te'rms of your ultimate goal is to try 5
to have all plants be excellent as opposed to meeting the 6
NRC requirements?
Or are you more dominated by your legal 7
requirements?
I presume the latter?
8 MR. WENZIb.)ER:
Wenzinger, NRC region 1.
- Yes, 9
the latter.
10 MR. MOELLER:
So, if they meet the law or the 11 regulations, then they get a category l?
In that 12 particular --
l(_,/
13 MR. WENZINGER:
No.
That's not true.
If thef 14 just meet the requirements it's possible they may get a 15 category 3.
If it's just barely meeting them.
16 MR. MOELLER:
Okay.
17 MR. WENZINGER:
If they do a reasonably credible 18 job but not excelling, then it's category 2.
If they 19 really stand out as putting forth a lot of effort and doing 20 a lot more than the regulations require, then it could be 21 category 1.
22 MR. MOELLER:
So in a sense, then, you are not 23 simply looking at whether they meet the regulations.
You 24 are looking at the degree to which they meet them and the 25 enthusiasm or attitude that's behind that?
,SV ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
w s~,we m wm m
24939.0 61 BRT 1
MR. WENZINGER:
Yes, sir.
That's correct.
What l
2 I was responding to was your question with regard to what l
3 our intent was.
Our intent is to assess their performance, 4
not particularly to urge them to do this or that.
5 MR. MOELLER:
Thank you.
6 MR. WARD:
But this SALP rating system is really 7
something separate from the regulations?
I assume all the 8
licensees moot the regulations.
You are using this 9
supposedly to decide how many inspectors to throw at them?
10 MR. WENZINGER:
That's -- one of the purposes is 11 to -- one that Mr. Shediosky read, one of the criteria in 12 each of the throo catego. ries, is determination of how much 13 inspection effort wo should do during the next period.
14 MR. WARD:
So, have you reduced the inspecting 15 at Millstone over the last three or four years?
16 MR. WENZINGER:
Yes, sir, we have.
Relative to 17 other plants.
18 MR. WARD:
Can you give me some numbers?
19 MR. WENZINGER:
I don't have the numbers offhand.
20 The number of inspection hours would be one indicator.
I 21 don't have those off the top of my head, although they are 22 reported in each SALP report.
23 MR. WARD:
!! ave the Millstono people noticed the 24 decrease in inspections in the last four years?
25 MR. ROMBERG Again, I don't have any numbers on
,~
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202.147.1700 Watinnwide Coverage
$10116.6644
24939.0 62 BRT k-1 it, but cubjectively I'd say yes, it has been an 2
improvement, from our side.
3 MR. WARD:
Yes.
Is it worth it?
4 MR. ROMBERG:
Yes.
I think the important thing 5
you have to understand from the utility perspective, if you 6
just meet the rules or just meet the law that's what it 7
takes to get by, but we are not in the business to just get 8
by because there are financial incentives to excel.
9 Meeting your equipment just good enough doesn't give you 10 374-day runs and give you the availability factor you have.
11 MR. WARD:
But why do you need a good SALP 12 rating?
()
13 MR. ROMBERG:
Having good SALP ratings gives us 14 time to talk to people -- people getting 3s have people 15 telling them how to do every step and that's not the way to 16 do a good j'ob.
We feel strongly about that.
If we can do 17 a good job consistently we can control our destiny and 18 match bang with the buck, and we are trying to continue to 19 do that.
20 MR. SHEWMON:
One other question in this area, 21 there are rating parameters one can have, that would be i
22 number of fines, availability factor, you know them better l
l 23 than I do.
Do you try to f actor things -- numbers into 24 this and get a performance number out, to'o ?
25 MR. WENZINGER:
No.
There 's no performance f
I l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L fM237 3700 Nationwide CC 800.)M 6646
24939.0 63 BRT 1
number, per se.
But we do two things, one more recently 2
than the other.
3 In the process of reviewing the various facts in 4
order to arrive at a judgment on what the criteria -- excuse 5
me -- oh, what the category for, say, plant operations 6
ought to be, we do consider the number of trips, for 7
example, the number of forced outages.
We do consider the 8
number of violations that have occurred.
It's only one 9
input, however, to the overall rating.
It is not given a 10 numerical value, but it is used in the judgment as to how 11 well the licensee is doing.
12 One other point, in the near future we hope to
-(s) 13 be.looking at performance indicators for the various plants, 14 and this will be a bit more numerical.
Just exactly how 15 that is going to work out has not been determined yet.
16 MR. WARD:
INPO uses a bunch of performance 17 indicators.
Are yours going to correspond or correlate 18 with theirs?
19 MR. WENZINGER:
I doubt it.
20 MR. MOELLER:
You'll have indicators of 21 performance in each of your, however many categories it was?
22 MR. WENZINGER:
We are primarily concerned about 23 what the trends are in each area; whether a licensee has 24 had a large number of spurious trips and that number is 25 increasing or decreasing; has had to enter into action
,o, ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide com 800 336-6646
24939.0 64 BRT 1
statements, and that number is increasing or decreasing.
2 We are using this primarily as a vehicle for judging what 3
sort of inspection efforts we should apoly to the plants; 4
whether we ought to consider increasing our inspection 5
efforts or should we be allowing some decrease in the 6
effort.
7 MR. SHEWMON:
Gentlemen, Mr. Shedlowsky still 8
has two dozen viewgraphs to get through.
Maybe he can omit 9
a few.
10 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
To continue on with the 11 categories.
During the first appraisal, which was 12 conducted in 1980, the assessment criteria was simply r_s 13 average or below average.
It did not use the 1, 2,
3; with 14 a notation if a change was necessary in the application of 15 NRC inspection resources.
16 Since then, the three categories of performance 17 criteria have been used.
18 Now, in 1985 the Board also recorded a 19 performance trend for the last quarter of the period.
This 20 trend was evaluated as improving, consistent, or declining.
21 That's a trend over the last quarter of the assessment 22 period which was roughly 4-1/2 months of an 18-month period.
23 (Slide.)
24 MR. MOELLER:
I don't understand that.
You say
-w 25 the assessment period is 4-1/2 months?
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
an? 1.t? 1*m Narinnwide Coversne 900 1 % 6646
[24939.0 65 BRT
,v k-1 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
No, the assessment period was 18 2
months for Millstone 1.
3 MR. MOELLER:
And 4-1/2 months was the trend?
4 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
What we did was look back at the 5
last 4-1/2 months of the 18-month period and see if the 6
trend of performance was increasing, was getting better or 7
getting worse or remained about constant.
8 (Slide.)
9 The first functional area is plant operations.
10 The. area encompasses a broad area of topics including 11 engineering support, design control, training and staffing, 12 as well as the overall conduct of facility operations.
()
13' Overall the performance from 1979 to present in 14 this area has been goed.
15 (Slide.)
16 The plant has recently had a significant period 17 of operation.
The turbine generator remained on line for 18 374 days.
August 4, 1984 through August 13, 1985.
19 Although this shutdown was due to a RPS trip which may have 20 been avoided, it was the first reactor trip since August 21 1983.
22 We have found that, in general, the plant 23
.iurators,and station management have exercised appropriate 24 attention to the details required for safe-and successful 25 reactor operation.
I have found that the control room ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-202-347 3700_ ___._ _ Nationwide Coverage _ _ 800 336-6646, _ ___ _
1 24939.0 66 BRT w/
1 personnel have an excellent knowledge of plant 2
characteristics and system interactions.
3 The licensee's management organization has 4
assumed an active role in the day-to-day operations of the 5
plant, as well as the long-term planning and scheduling 6
activities.
7 There has been a good deal of contingency 8
planning.
A recent example of this has to do with 9
Hurricane Gloria which passed through Connecticut on 10 September 27th.
I found that the licensee anticipated the 11 storm and began to take actions four days earlier.
12 Material which could become wind-driven debris
()
13 was removed from the site; checks were made of flood 14 control equipment; and emergency power supply fuel tanks 15 were fueled fully.
16 I observed the corporate of ficers participated 17 in the planning and recovery operations.
18 From previous experience, the licensee expected 19 a loss of off-site power during the storm.
In anticipation 20 of this, the licensee activated their emergency l
21 organization and shut down both reactors on the morning of 22 September 27th.
I 23 Off-site power was lost about an hour and a half 24 after the Unit 1 reactor shut down, and remained i
25 unavailable for about 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br />.
l l
l t
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l SB0074EG NMW 800.DDC*D
~24939.0 67 BRT AU 1
I found that the licensee's preparation for the 2
storm were thorough and appropriate.
Their recovery 3
actions -- their actions during the storm were well planned 4
and conservative, and their recovery actions were timely.
5 Yes, sir?
6 MR. BENDER:
Only as a matter of calibration, 7
but Hurricane Gloria came up the East Coast, and obviously 8
this was not the only plant that was threatened.
9 How did the other -- is there 4 way of comparing 10 the actions here with what might have been done in other 11 plants?
12 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
Since I was here, I'll ask Ed
()
13 Wenzinger to reflect on that.
14 MR. WENZINGER:
I was the NRC emergency 15 operations officer for Unit i during this storm all day 16 long, as a matter of fact.
Some of the plants, the storm l
17 passed a fair distance from.
The first one that we l
18 encountered of course was Calvert Cliffs.
And those plants I.
19 simply remained on line and the winds, as I recall, peaked j
20 at something like 50 miles an hour.
It was problem there.
I 21 MR. BENDER:
I wasn't thinking so much about t
22 what actually happened but what preparatory actions were 23 taken.
24 MR. WENZINGER:
The preparatory actions similar 25 to those at Millstone occurred at every site.
As I recall, ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 24939.0 68 BRT ll k'
1 Millstone was the only site to shut down and in fact, did l
2 have the winds that were the highest of all the sites.
3 MR. WARD:
And lost off-site power.
4 MR. WENZINGER:
They lost off-site power and 5
were well prepared for it.
l 6
MR. BENDER:
Other plants were doing the same 7
things?
8 MR. WENZINGER:
In terms of preparations; yes.
9 It was pretty clear, as you could watch the storm going up, 10 that it was nearly going to go right over Millstone.
l 11 MR. MOELLER:
Shoreham, I guess, was equally hit, 12 was it not?
(~%
x_)
13 MR. WENZINGER:
Yes.
But they are not operating.
14 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
The hurricane was relatively dry, 15 in that there was little precipitation but very high winds.
16 As the winds shifted from the southeast, this brought a lot 17 of high conductivity salt air into the switch yard, coating 18 the insulators and causing faults across insulators; and it 19 was just this scenario that the plant people expected from 20 previous storms.
21 MR. S!!EWMON:
Salt air is even kind of sour --
22 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
The resident inspectors 23 occasionally attend meetings of the site safety inspectors.
24 We found they involve thorough discussions and questioning.
25 We have been in the control room and obser$od opoestors
. O ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Smeula eghr~,
e
24939.0 69 BRT b
I respond to equipment failures and minimize additional 2
3 The results of the 1983 appraisal were critical 4
of licensee sensitivity to issues affecting the reliability 5
of on-site emergency power sources.
That assessment period 6
was marked with several gas turbine generator component 7
problems, and recurrent problems with the generator voltage 8
regulator.
9 The licenseo was responsive to us in this area.
10 Organizational changes were made, such that the proper 11 tochnical personnel are utilized in maintenance, 12 proventativo maintenanco, and performance trending of the
(~'
( j) 13 gas turbino.
14 System modifications were made which include the 15 installation of dehumidification equipment to protect the 16 generator voltage regulator components; a new and larger 17 battery for DC auxiliary power was installed; and 18 l procedures have been revised to better support the 19 alignment of the electrohydraulic governor system.
l 20 A second reason for the lower rating during the l
21 1983 appraisal was two incidents in which plant valvos wero l
22 mispositioned.
One radiation monitor flush valvo resulted 23 in the discharge of about 100,000 gallons of water from the 24 condensato storsgo tank.
The second involved gs 25 instrumentation isolation valvo control.
Following those C)
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
r~vm ren
- e---
24939.0 70 BRT 1
incidents improvements in the administrative controls of 2
plant valves were improved.
Licensing personnel have 3
recognized potential generic problems.
4 In 1982 a defect was discovered in General 5
Electric-type HFA relays, which may have prevented the 6
relay contacts from opening.
That relay has extensive 7
safety-related applications in BWR reactor protective and 8
ECCS circuits.
The relays have been replaced with a later 9
model.
10 (Slide.)
11 This slide shows the rating results in this 12 functional area for all of the SALP periods.
(m_)
13 (Slide.)
14 The next area is ' radiological controls.
This 15 includes radioactive waste management and effluent along 16 with radiation control and protection.
In the most recent 17 appraisal rating 2 was assigned because of weaknesses in 18 program implementation.
The problems which have occurred 19 relate to the ratio of radiation work permits and to solid 20 radioactive waste shipments.
Our review indicated that 21 additional management attention is required in this area.
22 (Slide.)
l 23 The problems which wero identified owe in 24 inspections have generally concerned the lack of proper 25 control of -- for workers at the job site.
For example, l
ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
F%PSMG MW CDM
24939.0 71 BRT
,o
(
)
l 1
the failure to specify proper protective clothing or 2
respiratory protection equipment appropriate to the work 3
effort.
4 A series of discrepancies made in radioactive 5
waste shipments to the Barnwell burial facility during 6
1984 and 1985 caused the state of South Carolina to suspend 7
the shipments.
8 The licensee has taken corrective actions, 9
including those at the management level, and convinced 10 South Carolina to reinstate them before a one-year 11 suspension period was completed.
12 MR. MOELLER:
Were these leaking containers?
(3
(_)
13 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
No.
Specifically, the three 14 incidents, most serious incidents were one shipment which 15 arrived with a radiation reading of 2.5 millirem in the cab 16 of the transportation vehicle.
17 The second incident involved a shipment of --
18 MR. MOELLER:
Was the first the case where they 19 had changed the tractor from what it originally was?
I 20 remember reading the LER.
21 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
No.
That one they believe there 22 was a shift of,the material within a cask, causing -- the 23 material was actually from Unit 2 -- they were in-core 24 instruments in a shioided cask, and it's believed the 25 material within a cask had shifted.
sj ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm m
I i
24939.0 72 BRT l (~\\
\\/
1 MR. MOELLER:
I remember in one event for some i-2 plant they had changed the tractor pulling the load and the 3
dose rate was higher in the new tractor.
4 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
That could happen with a 5
different design, but I believe in this case it was the i
6 same tractor arrived at South Carolina.
They did not 7
change transportation vehicles.
8 Another problem within a same shipment was i
9 incorrect contact readings.
The utility records contact 10 radiation readings.
Readings were taken in the --
11 underwater on this particular shipment and not corrected 12 for air readings prior to shipment.
This was an l ()
13 administrative error in the paperwork.
14 The second problem involved freestanding liquid 15 between the container liner and the shield container.
- Also, 16 of a serious nature to South Carolina, that same shipment, 17 a lifting rig was not installed.
It was removed and they 18 were sensitive to rad exposures for their own workers.
19 In the third incident, it involved a 320 20 millirem hot spot on the external surface of a LSA shipment, 21 a component, I believe it was a valve within a LSA shipment 22 had shifted within a box and exceeded the 200 millirem 23 contact reading.
24 These three incidents were sufficient for the 25 state of South Carolina to issue two civil penalties and ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
E3D07.D700 NationwideCm 800 3M4646
24939.0 73 BRT 1
suspend the utility for a year.
2 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
The licensee has taken 3
corrective action including those at management level 4
convincing South Carolina to reinstate them before the 5
one-year suspension was completed.
Recent performance has 6
demonstrated an increased attention to these problems by 7
licensen management.
6 The radiation protection program is defined by 9
good policies and procedures.
Ir.spection has indicated 10 consistent performance in contamination control, personnel 11 monitoring, radiological surveillance and job control.
The 12 licensee organization provides for a separate supervisor 13 responsible for radiation protection at Unit 1, and others 14 ;
at Units 2 and 3.
Each is suppo'rted by his own staff of 15 technicians.
16 The licensee has implemented a normal program to 17 get exposures as low as achievable.
It's designed to i
1 18 l analyze specific tasks and affect dose reductions methods, 19 as well as monitor test pe rfo rmance relative to performance 20 goals.
21 We feel that this program has been effectively 22 implemented and has licensee management support.
23 The licensee has programs in place to minimize 24 solid and liquid waste generation.
Several examples 25 adopted are decontamination, which allowed unrestricted y
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147.1700 N foverare 800 336 6M4
F L.
24939.0 74 BRT-l f
x -
1 reuse or disposal of material, and also stopping the 2
practice of resin regeneration.
3 The plant's liquid waste is processed through a 4
That water is reused and therefore reduces 5
the liquid effluents, which are normally less than 1 6
percent of the limit based on 1.5 millirem whole body per 7
quarter.
8 We have found that the licensee has provided 9
adequate resources for their staff to carry out the 10 radiation protection program.
Personnel are qualified and 11 capable of performing satisfactorily in their assigned 12 areas of responsibility.
They have implemented a (I
13 formalized training program for radiation protection staff, 14 and for radiation worker training.
15 (Slide.)
16 MR. MOELLER:
Excuse me, the number 1.5 millirem 17 per quarter, whose-number is that?
18 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
I believe that's from their 19 dose-related --
20 MR. MOELLER:
This is simply a plant or station 21 goal?
22 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
No.
I believe that is the 12 3 technical specification limit for radiation releases.
It 24 is a dose-related release measurement.
25 MR. MOELLER:
To liquid releases?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
fB2TDED Rt:mIch CDDOC"3
24939.0 75 BRT o-)
1 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
To liquids and gases; yes.
2 MR. MOELLER:
From drinking the water or 3
shellfish or what?
4 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
I believe it has to do with 5
shellfish ingestion.
But I would rather pass on that 6
question.
7 MR. MOELLER:
This is for the public?
8 1-1/2 --
9 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
1-1/2 millirem per quarter.
10 MR. MOELLER:
I never heard about that.
Maybe 11 tomorrow --
12 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
I,may be mistaken.
I think
(, )
13 that's the number reported in their quarterly or semiannual 14 environmental report.
15 MR. MOELLER:
Well, we can do it tomorrow.
I'd 16 just like to hear about it.
17 MR. ROMBERG:
We'll have an individual here 18 tomorrow who can discuss that.
19 MR. MOELLER:
Fine.
20 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
The next area is maintenance.
21 (Slide.)
22 Maintenance has been a consistently strong 23 program at Millstone 1.
Appropriate actions are taken for 24 preventative and corrective maintenance and the program is 25 well managed.
The area has been subject to -- subjected to 7-(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
K@237-8700 Nationwide Com 800 336 6646
24939.0 76 BRT l'%
kl 1
several team inspections during the past two years.
2 These groups have examined the performance, the 3
program effectiveness, and their findings have been 4
positive.
5 Each Millstone unit has its own maintenance and 6
INC departments which report to the unit superintendents.
7 (Slide.)
8 We have found a low rate of recurring failures 9
and a high success rate in post-maintenance acceptance 10 testing.
There is a very low instance in which rework is 11 required after completion of a maintenance action.
12 Detailed recordkeeping which reflects equipment
()
13 performance or machinery history has been a good feedback 14 mechanism to accomplish this.
15 A notable strength of the maintenance and INC 16 departments is'the backgrounds of many of the department 17 members.
A number of these people came to the utility with 18 previous experience gained in the naval reactors program, 19 or after completing apprenticeship programs and gaining 20 experience with aircraft engine manufacturers or in ship 21 building.
22 The caliber of those individuals helped 23 establish high standards of workmanship before the utility 24 had training programs.
25 Degreed staf f engineers have been assigned ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
n 1
l l
24939.0 77 BRT
('/
'r k-1 directly to the maintenance and INC departments for about 2
the last eight years.
This has provided direct expertise 3
to those departments in solving equipment problems.
4 MR. WARD:
So there's a maintenance 5
superintendent or something of maintenance and one of INC?
6 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
A maintenance cupervisor for 7
each of the three operating units; there's an INC 8
supervisor for each of the three operating units.
They 9
report to the unit superintendents.
10 MR. WARD:
Thank you.
11 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
Each one of those departments 12 have their own staff.
,m
(_)
13 MR. WARD:
With some professional engineers?
14 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
And there is a professional 15 4
engineer.
16 MR. WARD:
Where is electrical?
Is that INC?
17 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
Electrical maintenance --
18 electric is a part of maintenance.
Electrical maintenance.
19 These are the people who will do maintenance 20 work on breakers, switch gear --
21 MR. WARD:
Yes.
Thank you.
22 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
Motors.
23 (Slide.)
24 The next area is surveillance.
The licensee has 25 a well implemented surveillance program which implements ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
-24939.0 78 BRT 1
these requirements.
These programs are implemented by the 2
operations, INC, maintenance, and engineering department 3
personnel.
4 The resident inspectors observe the conduct of 5
testing on a periodic basis, generally with little or no 6
warning.
7-(Slide.)
8 Although we found that the program was wel1 9
managed, in 1983 we found that the licensee had failed to 10 implement commitments made to improve procedures in a 11 manner needed to minimize personnel errors.
This has been 12 corrected and they have had good performance since that 13 time.
14 We identified the need for additional management 15 attention during the 1984 containment integrated leak rate 16 test.
We found that repairs to leaking valves were being 17 made during the conduct of the test and that there was poor 18 coordination with other outage activities such as welding, 19 which caused electronic interference with test 20 instrumentation.
21 However, this area has several notable strengths; 22 specifically, there are programs in place which have 23 improved the reliability of safety-related instruments, and 24 the gas turbine generator.
25 By tending the contact resistance of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. 8i3337-D71i)
NationwideCoq _
800-336-6646
24939.0 79 BRT 1
microswitches, the licensee has been able to limit set 2
point drift problems by replacing components at the first 3
sign of degradation.
4 (Slide.)
5 Likewise, after critical inspection findings in 6
1983, various parameters of the gas turbine are included in 7
trending programs.
These programs, along with new system 8
alignment procedures, have improved the reliability and 9
operating performance of the unit.
10 As part of the in-service inspection program, 11 the licensee is using computer-aided equipment for the 12 ultrasonic -- for ultrasonic analysis.
They are also using
()
13 image enhancement of radiographs to gain additional 14 information from those photographs.
15 The in-service test program which is applied to 16 safety-related pumps and valves has been extended to 17 balance of plant equipment as part of a reliability program.
18 (Slide.)
19 These are the overall ratings.
20 (Slide.)
21 Going on to-the next areas, fire protection and 22 housekeeping, there have been no significant problems in 23 the implementation of the fire protection program 24 requirements.
Overall, their performance is good.
25 (Slide.)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33(H5646
24939.0 80 BRT
.(~
A-)
1 The program is well organized and implemented.
2 The licensee has established a liaison with the Waterford
'3 Fire Department for assistance in the event of a large or 4
difficult fire; dril1.s are held for plant staff and the 5
fire department responds routinely -- or participates 6
routinely.
We have observed that they have responded 7
rapidly to calls for assistance during drills and appear 8
familiar with the station and its fire fighting facilities.
9 Security procedures are in place for rapid 10 emergency access.
This also has been demonstrated during 11 drills.
12 MR. MOELLER:
How big is Waterford and how big s()
13 ie the fire department?
14 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
I don't have numbers.
It is a 15 volunteer organization.
They do have several fire 16 departments within the town of Waterford.
Specifically the 17 Goshen Fire Department within the town of Waterford 18 supports -- is the closest support to this facility.
19 MR. MOELLER:
Are there people who work here at 20 the plant who are members of the volunteer fire department?
21 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
I'd have to pass.
22 MR. ROMBERG:
Yes, there are.
We have a very 23 close liaison.
In fact, the fire chief -- I think it's 24 Goshen -- works for us in the emergency planning function.
25 Typically numbers are about 6, 7 per 100.
We have two fire pG ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
J4939.0 81 BRT
,(_/
1 companies for support.
Goshen is closest and the other 2
name just slips me but we have to that are about 3
equidistant that respond.
4 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
The other is probably 5
Oswegatchie.
6 MR. ROMBERG:
Not that, it was on the other side.
7 If you didn't ask I would have told you.
-- Jordan is the 8
other one.
9 MR. STETZ:
As a matter of fact, during 10 Hurricane Gloria they helped out in our recovery operations 11 by washing down the insulators.
12 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
A high state of cleanliness is
()
13 '
normally found in the buildings during operation.
An 14-extensive amount of work has been done in the plant to 15 allow access to most areas without the need of protective 16 clothing.
17 Many of the areas are aow restricted because of 18 outage related work activities but have less restrictions 19 during plant operations.
20 In response to a criticism stated in our latest 21 SALP report, the licensee has begun to clean up the 22 exterior yard areas which had become cluttered with 23 equipment.
24 (Slide.)
25 These are the overall ratings again.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M446
24939.0 82 BRT
'( /
1 (Slide.)
2 The next area is emergency preparedness.
The 3
licensee's performance in emergency preparedness is 4
reviewed during inspections of the program, implementation, 5
and during the evaluation of emergency exercises.
One such 6
exercise was conducted on November 7, 1985.
The licensee's 7
performance was found to be satisfactory and their own 8
critique very thorough.
9 During the November exercise the new technical
.10 support center was used for the first time.
The major 11 outstanding item in emergency preparedness for Unit 1 is 12 the safety parameter display system.
-( )
13 A schedule for completion of this system is due 14 April 9, 1987.
15 In 1983 the licensee received a lower 16 performance rating because of delays in equipment and 17 program implementation.
'18 (Slide.)
19 This next slide gives an overall summary of the 20 ratings.
21 (Slide.)
22 Going on to security and safeguards, although 23 the performance of the station's security program has been 24 very good, it initially suffered from significant computer
~
25 hardware and software problems.
There were also a number ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage a00-33M686
.- 347-3700
24939.0 83 BRT N. /
1 of personal errors during the same period of time.
2 (Slide.)
3 These problems have been corrected.
Management 4
attention has become -- has been evident and focused at an 5
effective program.
The licensee has a comprehensive 6
corporate security audit program, which is a notable 7
strength of this utility and demonstrates their commitment 8
to a quality security program.
The utility has a strong 9
drug and alcohol awareness program, and has taken a 10 no-nonsense approach towards this problem.
11 (Slide.)
12 These again are the overall ratings for security.
)
13 (Slide.)
14 And going on to the next area, refueling and 15 outage management.
This area includes the activities which 16 are normally associated with refueling the reactor and 17 managing the other work which occurs during those periods.
18 Performance has not always met expectations.
19 The licensee has a very strong program for cost and 20 schedule control of major outages; however, errors have 21 occurred which demonstrate the need for additional 22
' management attention.
23 (Slide.)
24 For example, an installation error in the liquid 25 post-accident sampling system made it impossible to take a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nationwide Com 800-336-6646 202-347-3700
24939.0 84 BRT-4 1
sample from the shutdown cooling system.
That error was 2
not found until additional testing was requested by NRC 3
inspectors.
4 Just recently, design errors were found by the 5
licensee in safety-related logic circuits.
Those resulted 6
from modifications performed in the early 1970s.
The error 7
would have been discovered if thorough reoperational 8
testing was performed to the requirements of regulatory 9
guide 1.41.
10 A modification is to be made during this 11 refueling outage to correct that problem.
I would expect
-12 that thorough testing would be performed at that time.
O 13 (s11ae-)
14 The most recent apprdisal results were also 15 based on the failure to complete several commitments on 16 containment isolation valve control from the systematic 17 evaluation program.
However, in spite of these weaknesses,.
18 the licensee has performed well in managing major outages.
19 Detailed schedules are prepared well in advance and adhered 20 to.
Also, 24-hour-a-day management coverage is provided 21 during outages.
22 (Slide.)
23 MR. SHEUMON:
Will you explain to me what a 24 fully mitigated civil penalty is?
25 MR. WENZINGER:
You don't have to pay anything.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
24939.0 85 BRT
,m I
)
\\/
1 MR. SHEWMON:
That's one kind of mitigation.
2 Okay.
3 MR. MOELLER:
In other words, on further 4
investigation you found that their response and the 5
situation justified a cancellation of the penalty?
6 MR. WENZINGER:
That is one of the criteria that 7
can be used to mitigate a civil penalty; yes.
8 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
The last area is licensing.
9 There's been good performance in the licensing area.
10 There's been a high degree of management involvement in 11 this area and that the licensee appears to be at the 12 forefront of many of the technical issues.
()
13 (Slide.)
v 14 Again, the ratings in that area have been 15 consistently good.
~
16 (Slide.)
17 This slide gives us an overview of the results 18 of each of the functional areas for each of the rating 19 periods.
20 (Slide.)
21 MR. MOELLER:
What does " average" mean, in the 22.
last?
Is that the trend?
23 (Slide.)
[
24 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
Average was the rating given in 25 the very first period, in 1980.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
24939.0 86 BRT 1
MR. MOELLER:
Oh, 2
MR. SHEDLOSKY:
At that time we didn't use the 3
criteria 1, 2,
3, but just average or below average.
4 MR. MOELLER:
I'm sorry, I was reading left to 5
right and I should have been reading right to left.
6 MR. WARD:
They are all is in the bottom, 7
licensing activities.
I thought I remembered in reading 8
some of the letters and so forth that you had a problem and 9
that in fact the licensee is staffed up more heavily in 10 licensing --
11 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
I believe they were given a 1, a 12 performance category of 1 in each of the cases.
- However,
()
13 the comment has been made that their timeliness in 14-responding to licensing initiatives should be improved.
15 Jim Shea, the licensing project manager is here and may 16 have more to add.
17 MR. SHEA:
Overall, they are number 1.
I mean 18 they are rated number 1.
When you talk to the different 19 reviewers that sometimes get involved, individuals 20 sometimes report back that they wish they had the 21 information sooner or they didn't think they were getting 22 fast enough response.
But that has a personal factor in it, 23 too.
It depends on who the reviewer is, how much 24 experience, how much exposure he's had in different 25 utilities, and particularly --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6
24939.0 87 BRT 1
MR. MOELLER:- Are there wide differences?
If
-2 we saw the same chart for Unit 2, say, wherever there were 3
comparable time periods, would the. numbers be roughly the 4-same?'
I mean, I assume security and safeguards has to be 5
the same.
6 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
There are differences.
- However, 7-the Board has tended to lump radiological controls --
8 MR. MOELLER:
So that and. security --
9 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
And security and safer guards 10 an'd emergency preparedness as one evaluation for the site.
11 MR. MOELLER:
Well, are there significant 12 differences in anything else?
()
13 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
There have been.
I don't have 14 the-Unit 2 figures with me, but there have been differences 15 in plant operations, surveillance testing and refueling and 16 outage management.
Between periods.
17 MR. MOELLER:
And that's the people that are 18 working at that specific unit?
19 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
It has to do with the 20 performance of those people and programs at that unit, at 21 that unit during that appraisal period.
22 MR. MOELLER:
You know, you often seek to 23 determine what it is that makes a good plant, what it is 24 that makes an average or a poor one.
And for all three 25 units, certainly the corporate attitude and stimulation ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-M46
24939.0 88 BRT 1
would be the same, I presume?
Or it would be identical, 2
would it not?
So that it means that the precise people who 3
are right down there doing the job, they can make a 4
difference.
5 MR. WENZINGER:
Occasionally there are 6
differences between Units 1 and 2 in the areas that are 7
unique to each one of those facilities, but if you just 8
looked in a broad brush they are quite similar.
l 1
9 (Slide.)
10 MR. SHEDLOSKY:
This is an overview again of the 11 five appraisal periods.
We basically found that the 12 licensee performance has been very good and primarily due
( w) l 13 to a high degree of management attention to their problems.
14 MR. SHEWMON:
Any other questions?
15 Thank you very much.
16 Does that bring us to the end cf what we wanted 17 to cover today?
18 MR. GRIMES:
It does, except you wanted to have 19 a discussion about the summary of pending actions to 20 preface tomorrow's meeting.
21 I would propose, despite the late hour, to take 22 5 or 10 minutes and try and describe the differentiation 23 between the various problems that Dr. Moeller referred to 24 earlier so that tomorrow you can go into the meeting with a 25 better understanding of where all these findings of issues O'd ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 i
24939.0 89 BRT
,m J
l have come from and are going to.
2 In order to do that, I would like to first 3
explain that I'm going to go through and explain the 4
genesis of all these initiatives.
In an effort to try and 5
explain to you that there is a distinction that can be made 6
between the license conversion and the ongoing activities
.7
.that have led the licensee to undertake an integrated 8
' safety assessment program, which we commonly refer to as 9
ISAP -- and the reason we do that is basically because of 10 the requirements that we have to satisfy in order to go 11 about converting a license from a provisional operating 12 license to a full term operating license.
()
13 The history of that is, in the 1960s, basically 14 all the plants that we were looking at were unique designs.
15 They were considered to be demonstration projects more than
'16 anything else.
And, so that the Commission had a policy, 17 it issued provisional operating licenses, allowed the plant 18 to operate for some period of time, typically about a year, 19 and then reconsidered the plant for full term operating 20 license.
21 In the early 1970s, the Commission suspended the 22 practice of these license conversions because we were 23 coming of age, so to speak.
The staff was developing a lot 24 of regulatory requirements that eventually led to the 25 standard review plan in 1975.
But in the face of those and
~^
(O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Md46
24939.0 90 BRT
.. n k_
1 a number of generic issues, the Commission hesitated to 2
convert the licenses, and so we were left with a handful of 3
provisional operating licenses, and by 1977, when the 4
Commission came up with the idea for a systematic 5
evaluation program, they had resumed the practice of 6
issuing full teen operating licenses because we then had an 7
established review plan to establish the foundation for a 8
full term operating license.
9 But we had these lingering provisional operating 10 licenses that had not been resolved.
One of the 11
- requirements for converting the license was to address-all 12 of the regulatory requirements that had evolved since the
()
13
' provisional operating license was issued.
14-By 1975 they had already developed three-to 15 five years worth of regulatory requirements.
And they I
L 16 wanted the -- the Commission wanted to undertake a 17 systematic evaluation program to look at all operating 18 reactors.
l 19 The first phase of SEP was a scope of review.
i 20 The staff screened some 1200 to 1800 separate safety issues 21 to identify the scope of review for SEP.
22 The results of Phase 1 were the 137 topics that 23 were evaluated for the 11 plants in Phase 2, which was 24 intended to be a pilot effort for SEP.
We would first 25 start with these 11 plants, do a review of the 137 topics, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
24939.0 91
-BRT 7k l-1 and then go on to an SEP phase 3, where we would review all 2
of the rect of the operating reactors.
3 As a part of SEP Phase 2, the Commission 4
instructed that that review scope was sufficient to address 5
how the newly evolved regulatory requirements were 6
satisfied for these plants that still have provisional 7
operating licenses.
8 The results of the SEP review, then, are a part 9
of the required findings for the license conversion.
10 We essentially completed SEP Phase 2 during a 11 period of mid-1982 to mid-1984.
During the course of the 12 program we dropped Dresden 1.
As most of you know, they
()
13 were in an extensive decommissioning outage and 14 subsequently Commonwealth Edison elected to decommission 15 the plant rather than try and refurbish it for continued 16 plant operation.
17 At this stage we've completed all of the 18 integrated plant safety assessment reports that identify 19 all the differences from the current criteria for the 137 20 topics and we've begun issuing the supplements that we 21 promised in each of those reports,that would describe the 22 results of the follow-up reviews.
23 The first one of those to be issued was l
24 Palisades.
The Palisades supplement described how the 25 ongoing evaluations were resolved for that plant.
But f-J t
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
24939.0 92 BRT
(_)
1 because of extensive steam generator tube improvements and 2
also because of reconsideration of some of the SEP actions, 3
we delayed the license conversion and we went on to the 4
second plant that we had finished in SEP, and that was 5
Ginna.
6 As some of you may know, we had two ACRS 7
Subcommittee meetings on Ginna, to discuss in some detail 8
the tornado protection for that plant, and subsequently, 9
after a full committee review, we issued the full term 10 operating license for Ginna, 11 By chance, Millstone happens to be the next 12 closest to a supplement.
We've given the Subcommittee the
- ( )
13 draft, integrated plant safety assessment report supplement, 14 or NUREG,204 supplement 1.
The only thing lacking in 15 issuing that report is the date of the SER for the wind and 16 tornado evaluations that was recently completed.
As soon 17 as that report is issued, and it should be -- it may have 18 even gone out today -- then we'll send that supplement to 19 the publishers as soon as we've gotten --
20 MR. SHEHMON:
This is wind and tornado for 21 Millstone 1?
22 MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
That was the last 23 of the ongoing evaluations that we had to address in the 24 context of the follow-up on the SEP activities.
25 As I said, we've given you a draft of that
,_U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(H5646
24939.0 93 BLT
- (
~
l report and except for editorial changes at the final 2
conclusion on the safety evaluation for winds and tornadoes, 3
the results presented in that draft are accurate.
4 We proceeded with the license conversion because 5
the licensee has, for many years, expressed an interest in 6
tying up that loose end to their plant.
As a matter of 7
coincidence, during the course of the SEP review, Millstone 8
Unit 1 was also selected as one of five plants in the 9
interim reliability evaluation program -- which was a TMI 10 action plan, industry initiative -- to develop 11 plant-specific probabilistic analysis for the operating 12 reactors, to get a perspective on plant safety in a i )j
(
13 probabilistic light.
s_
14 The results of the IREP study were followed into 15 SEP, because we used risk perspectives to develop some of 16 the judgments on the significance of the differences from 17 current licensing criteria.
18 The findings that were required to be made for a 19 license conversion consist of the results of SEP, and then 20 a status report on the TMI action plan requirements, the 21 generic issues, and the unresolved safety issues, much like 22 thu status reports that you see seeking a near-term 23 operating license.
That is what is described in NUREG 1143, 24 which we referred to as the conversion SER.
Together, the 25 conversion SER, and the supplemental SEP report constitute i
f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 800 336-6646
_. Nationwide Coverage,
-24939.0 94
~BRT
- //'
i x-1 the findings required for a license conversion.
2 We started to do that process in 1983 as a way 3
of completing SEP and our commitment to the Commission in 4
1978 to finish the license conversions.
5 At about the same time we were developing the 6
results from SEP for the 10 plants that we had nearly 7
-completed at that time, and one of the principal findings 8
that we made was that, overall, the SEP plants compared l'
9 favorably to current licensing criteria.
However, the
-10 process that we used, the integrated assessment process, 11-seemed to be more effective at identifying plant-specific j
12 improvements than the issue-by-issue process that we had
, ;( )
13 typically taken in the TMI action plan and subsequent
-14 generic initiatives.
'15 So, instead of proposing to continue the SEP as 16 we had in the past, with the rest of the operating reactors, 17 we decided to propose to the Commission that we would 18 undertake a different program in place of SEP that's called 19 the integrated safety assessment program.
In that program 20 we would look at the significant findings from SEP and all 21 of the other pending regulatory requirements, generic 22-
-issues, unresolved safety issues, and probabilistic 23 insights in a collective review in order to make balanced 4
24 backfitting judgments and to order the corrective actions 25 for these -- for the operating reactors, in a more logical i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
. _ _ _ MJ 38_.--,
NacimQCoverage 800 3%46d6
24939.0 95 BRT 1
fashion.
2 Coincidentally, again, Northeast Utilities 3
volunteered their plants because they felt that the 4
integrated assessment process in SEP had been a useful and 5
worthwhile exercise and they wanted to apply it to the rest 6
of the requirements that were being imposed on their 7
facilities, so they volunteered Millstone Unit 1 and Haddam 8
Neck.
9 MR. SHEWMON:
You keep identifying things, and li0 talk about how you resolved the IPSAR 1 and IPSAR 11.
supplements and SERs, but yet, we still seem to have this 12 vast reservoir of unresolved issues out there.
They keep
,m
(_)
13 cropping up faster than we can push them down.
Or can you 14 give me a chart tomorrow and show how indeed it started 15 finite and it's converging to something?
Or what?
16 MR. GRIMES:
We'll give you a list of the issues 17 involved, but in general, there's a continuum.
1983, when 18 we checked on how many operating requirements there were 19 for any operating reactor the number was 49.
In 1984, when 20 they first issued the policy statement on the integrated 21 safety assessment program the number was 50.
22 So there is a level of pending regulatory, 23 requirements that came about because of unresolved safety 24 issues, or resolved.
And they now have a list of things to 25 do.
O-x ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
fir 347 3700 Nationwide Com 800 336-6646
24939.0 96 BRT c
1 Operating experience identifies events that 2
either lead to I&E bulletins or plant-specific actions.
3 New regulatory requirements are continually being developed 4
and the regulations are changed.
Most recent example is 5
ATWS.
6 Some of the studies they undertook in SEP to 7
identify plant-specific corrective actions have identified 8
different things, different activities that proceed from 9
those, including hardware modifications, procedural changes 10 and even further st dies.
And at the same time, the 11 licensee has taken what was done in IREP and applied it to 12 their plant in a more consistent fashion, using updated n(,)
13 information and now they have identified a list of plant 14 improvements on a probabilistic basis that th'ey feel are 15 worthwhile and warranted from both the plant reliability 16 point of view and a safety perspective.
17 And so, in general, the SEP activities have 18 converged.
There's a very small residual of SEP actions 19 that have yet to be completed but the licensee ::as proposed 20 to resolve in the integrated assessment program, more from 21 the standpoint of scheduling those activities consistent 22 with their safety benefits --
23 MR. SHEWMON:
Do these things each go through 24 Cougar when they come up?
25 MR. GRIMES:
The unresolved safety issue f-l I
f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ESPS4T700 Nationwide CovgD 800-336 6646
24939.0 97 BRT t
I requirements do go through Cougar.
The new regulations go 2
through Cougar.
3 As a result of the probabilistic analysis those 4
proposed plant improvements do not go through Cougar.
They 5-are proposed by the utility, so they don't constitute a 6
backfit in that context.
However, one of the procedures 7
that we hope to develop from the integrated assessm3nt 8
program is a way to follow probabilistically developed 9
plant improvements into the licensing arena.
Right now we 10 don't have a procedure to do that.
11 Yes, Mr. Bender?
12 MR. BENDER:
I don't think this is the right
)
13 time to answer this question.
You might think about doing 14 it tomorrow.
It might be useful, in' order to see how the 15 ISAP really attacks the broader issue, to give us a few 16 illustrations of how you are going to run a probabilistic 17 analysis.
I think some of them show up in the SER.
If you 18 could elaborate a little bit on how that is done --
19 MR. GRIMES:
We intend to when we describe the 20 integrated assessment program's scope.
21 MR. SHEWMON:
Has IREP come to some conclusion 22 or has it faded away?
23 MR. GRIMES:
It was finished.
There was a final 24 report.
The utility was informed there were significant 25 findings and the utility responded by explaining what ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
x)2 347 3S70 NMCdoverage 800 336 6646
I L
24939.0 98 BRT 7
(~)
1 actions they had taken to address the actions from the IREP 2
study.
There were some dominant contributors to risk that 3
involved both design issues and plant operation issues.
4 MR. SHEWMON:
Did they get added to any list as 5
being considered as part of ISAP?
6 MR. GRIMES:
No.
We consider IREP to be done 7
and over.
The licensee took the IREP study and built their 8
own listing out of the probabilistic study and they call 9
that their probabilistic safety study and they formally 10 submitted the results of that on their docket and they 11 intend to use that, not only to identify other plant 12 improvements but also to -- as a ranking tool to identify
()
13 the order that corrective actions should be done.
14 MR. SHEWMON:
Would it be unfair to characterize 15 ISAP as a way that you can use to identify and rank safety 16 issues and the utility can use to keep you off their back 17 if they think it's really a trivial item?
18 MR. GRIMES:
That's a fair generalization.
We 19 prefer to look at it as a way of distinguishing between 20 integrated schedules and resolutions of this laundry list 21 of things.
The purpose of ISAP is to rely on --
22 MR. SHEWMON:
Between laundry list and which?
23 MR. GRIMES:
Between simply developing an 24 integrated schedule for all of the things on the laundry 25 list and reviewing the corrective actions to determine what
,_U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
24939.0 99 BRT i
\\
AJ l
ought to be on this list of things to do.
2 MR.~ SHEWMON:
Prioritizing, you mean?
3 MR. GRIMES:
Prioritizing would be a part'of it, 24 but in ISAP there would also be decisions about what 5
actions to be taken:
What are the implementation items?
6 We would -- for example, we don't normally 7
require that a plant investigate probabilistically-based 8
improvements.
In ISAP they will do that and they will 9
balance that by looking at the regulatory requirements and 10 will see if some of those things can fit together, 11 For example, the issues being raised under U.S.
12 1845, which I'm sure Dr. Ward is familiar with, fit hand in
()
13 glove with the principal fin' ding on the probabilistic 14 safety study that the major contributory risks for this 15 plant is long-term decay, heat removal.
And a way to I
16 resolve both of those issues, hopefully, will evolve from 17 our ISAP study.
18 But getting back to the fundamental purpose of 19 this meeting, in order to get on with the next order of 20 business, we'd like to get the license conversion out of 21 the way.
We have completed our conversion SER and 22 described the status of all of the generic issues, the 23 major plant modifications since the plant was licensed and 24 the SEP supplement describes how the SEP activities have 25 been resolved; and in some cases we have deferred some of O
V ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
~
l 24939.'O 100
-BRT Okl 1
those things to ISAP.
2 We don't view those deferrals as particularly 3
significant issues.
4 MR. SHEWMON:
Is an SEP supplement the same 5
thing as an IPSAR supplement?
6 MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
7 MR. SHEWMON:
Thank you.
8 MR. GRIMES:
Typically refer to it as "the 9'
supplement" to try and avoid confusion.
10 After the license conversion is completed we 11 hope to go on and dedicate our resources to doing the first 12 plant in the ISAP pilot. program.
()
13 Millstone, coincidentally, is the first plant; 14 for two reasons.
One is the utility volunteered and the 15 Commission wouldn't let us go forward without a voluntary 16 program.
The second reason is because it was a SEP, we 17 don't have to take the time to go through and review the 18 significant,SEP findings, so we can proceed to work on this 19 plant right away.
20 So it, along with Haddam Neck, was selected in 21 order to test the process.
22 Fundamentally, I think that the Commission 23 believes that looking at all of the pending requirements 24 plus other safety issues collectively will be a useful tool.
25 And we hope that some day that eventually will either lead ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
E l
24939.0 102 BRT-7.s t >I-1 And we hope to start the Haddam Neck review in early s
2 calendar year 1986.
3 MR. SHEWMON:
Any questions?
4 MR. GRIMES:
We will give you our handouts 5
tonight so that you can look over the list.
We are going 6
to try to avoid confusing the Subcommittee.
But it is 7
easier for us to describe --
8 MR. SHEWMON:
That may be hard.
9 MR. WARD:
We are easily confused.
10 MR. GRIMES:
It's easier for us to describe the 11 status of the pending SEP actions, unresolved safety issues, 12 generic issues and TMI action plan items as they appear in H()
13 the ISAP scope of review.
So if ISAP weren't here, those 14 lists would constitute the menu of activities for these --
15 for this facility.
16 In the absence of that program -- they are, 17 therefore, the total set of pending actions.
18 MR. MOELLER:
Does your handout show each one of 19 these and show how you flow into an integrated final 20 product?
21 MR. GRIMES:
Hopefully when we go through the 22 presentation tomorrow on ISAP, we'll show you how that 23 comes together.
We also hope by starting out by describing 24 what we've got left in terms of an SEP activity, you'll see 25 how that has come together already.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
24939.0 103 CRT
,'v) 1 I'll give these handouts to Mr. Schiffgens, so 2
you can go over the list and look at it tomorrow.
3 MR. SHEWMON:
Fine.
Is that it, then?
4-MR. GRIMES:
That's all we covered here today.
5 MR. SHEWMON:
Sorry to keep you all here so late, 6
but I promise to let you out early tomorrow.
7 (Whereupon, at 7:35 p.m.,
the meeting was 8
adjourned.)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
.g
'(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3)2-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER g
AJ 1
This is.to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter.of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILLSTONE UNI'IS 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKET NO.:
PLACE:
WATERFORD, CONNECTICUT
/~T
- (_/
DATE:
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1985 were held-as herein aprC rr at;d that this is the original transcript thereof fc.-
.jp
,le of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
~
/
/
(TYPE JOE REITNER Official Reporter ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Rep 5rter's Affiliation G
MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT NO, 1 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS ON FULL-TERM OPERATING LICENSE NOVEMBER 18 - 19, 1985 L
O ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MILLSTONE UNIT 1 SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING NOVEMBER 18-19, 1985 NUSC0/NNEC0 REPRESENTATIVES MICHAEL P. BAIN GENERATION FACILITIES LICENSING DR. JOHN H. BICKEL SUPERVISOR, PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT PAUL A. BLASIOLI GENERATION FACILITIES LICENSING ERIC A. DEBARBA SYSTEM MANAGER, GENERATION MECHANICAL ENGINEERING JAY F. ELY SUPERVISOR, GENERATION MECHANICAL ENGINEERING HARRY F. HAYNES MANAGER, OPERATOR TRAINING RICHARD M. KACICH SUPERVISOR, OPERATING NUCLEAR PLANT LICENSING MITCHELL S. LEDERMAN GENERATION FACILITIES LICENSING
(])WAYNED.ROMBERG MILLSTONE STATION SUPERINTENDENT JOHN P. STETZ SUPERINTENDENT, MILLSTONE UNIT 1 CE)
=
O MILLSTONE UNIT 1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION FACILITY TOUR O
O
e 5
j i+4
}
I
~~
_ E-4 I
l I J
l
.j(
O -.l'hc l
3, L.
,J1
+
o l
lI E
/
l A ci III i
-6_w I
1 J
i :r ll
=MR l
l k' l
I!
l f
4 hj j
i Z
!!e4 i*
o a
q O
(])
MILLSTONE UNIT 1 PLANT FEATURES
+-
o GENERAL ELECTRIC BWR-3 2,011 MW THERMAL, 680 MW ELECTRIC MARK 1 PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT CONSTRUCTED BY EBASCO 2 LOOPS WITH. JET PUMPS 3 ELECTRIC FEEDWATER PUMPS (SAFETY GRADE)
ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WITH LONG ISLAND SOUND o
ONSITE EMERGENCY POWER SYSTEM DIESEL GENERATOR GAS TURBINE GENERATOR (POWER FOR FWCI)
O 1
p
]
MILLSTONE UNIT 1 PLANT FEATURES o
EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS FEEDWATER COOLANT INJECTION SYSTEM (FWCl)
TWO 100% CORE SPRAY PUMPS FOUR 33% LPCI PUMPS AUTOMATIC PRESSURE RELIEF SYSTEM (11 APR VALVES)
ISOLATION CONDENSER o
100% TURBINE BYPASS CAPABILITY PLANT WILL RIDE OUT FULL LOAD REJECT WITHOUT SCRAM TURBINE RUNBACK +TO HOUSE LOAD I
O
L l
l l
LO-t l
1 ll.
I t
l MILLSTONE UNIT 1 PLANT TOUR O
. MILLSTONE SITE L
o SIMULATOR / TRAINING FACILITIES 1
l 0
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS FACILITY l
I e
I i
i O i
_ - _ _ _ _., -, _ - _ _ ~ - -. -
.O MILLST NE UNIT 1 PLANT TOUR
)
PROTECTED AREA I
o UNIT LAYOUT o
CONDENSER BAY - TURBINE BUILDING t
0 REACTOR BUILDING REFUELING FLOOR l
o ISOLATION CONDENSER o
SEISMIC HANGERS o
ENVIRONMENTAL ENCLOSURES o
RECIRCULATION PUMP M-G SETS o
CORNER ROOM - ECCS EQUIPMENT o-ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION MODS-MOVs o
LPCI HEAT EXCHANGERS o
TURBINE DECK o
CONTROL ROOM O
r O
MILLSTONE UNIT 1 OPERATING PHILOSOPHY AND EXPERIENCE MAJOR MODIFICATIONS SINCE ISSUANCE OF POL AND RESPONSE TO MAJOR REGULATORY CHANGES RESPONSE TO TMI ACTION PLAN O
O
=,
MILLSTONE UNIT 1 UNIT HISTORY CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION CONSTRUCTION START:
MAY 1966 INITIAL CRITICAL:
OCTOBER 26, 1970 INITIAL ON-LINE:
NOVEMBER 29, 1970 COMMERCIAL OPERATION:
DECEMBER 1970 100% POWER:
JANUARY 3, 1971 O APPLICATION FOR FTOL:
SEPTEMBER 1, 1972 L
s
.O l
l
-O MILLSTONE UNIT 1 UNIT HISTORY MAJOR OUTAGES START DATE DURATION (DAYS)
FIRST REFUEL:
SEPTEMBER 1, 1972 190 FIRST F.W. SPARGER REPLACEMENT:APRIL 18, 1973 102 SECOND REFUEL:
SEPTEMBER 1, 1974 63 THIRD REFUEL:
SEPTEMBER 14, 1975 35
' FOURTH REFUEL:
OCTOBER 1, 1976 60 O FiFTH REFuEt, MARCH 10, 1973 33 SIXTH REFUEL:
APRIL 28, 1979 61 SEVENTH REFUEL:
OCTOBER 4, 1980 197 TURBINE OUTAGE:
APRIL 21, 1981 60 ElGHTH REFUEL:
SEPTEMBER 11, 1982 69 NINTH REFUEL:
APRIL 14, 1984 77 TENTH REFUEL (IN PROGRESS):
OCTOBER 26, 1985 33 (EsT )
i I
lo.
4
=
.._..r.,,,-,_.._....,___,
.~
,,_ ~_-__
._,___.m.,
_ ~. -
O MILLSTONE UNIT 1 UNIT PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE STATISTICS (LIFE TO DATE)
MWE GENERATED:
60,586,296* (GROSS)
O CAPACITY FACTOR:
67.5*
AVAILABILITY:
75.0*
- AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1985.
(
L lO l
i
MILLSTONE UNIT 1 UNIT PERFORMANCE ANNUAL CAPACITY FACTORS YEg CAPACITY FACTORS (%)
JNDUSTRY AVERAGE 1970 (DECEMBER ONLY) 25.9 1971 63.2 58.9
~
1972 54.9 54.3 1973 33.2 57.2 1974 63.1 57.5 1975 68.4 58.6 1976 65.6 56.8 O
1977 83.4 62.9 l
1978 80.5 65.2 l
1979 73.0 58.9 1980 58.5 56.0 1981 43.6(1) 59.9 f
1982 70.5(2) 57.6 l
1983 92.6 57.3 1984 74.6 58.1 1985 93.9*
(1)
DUE TO BOTH REFUELING AND TURBINE OUTAGES.
(2)
ACHIEVED WITHOUT LP TURBlNE "A"
"B" 14TH STAGE BUCKETS INSTALLED.
- AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1985.
O
I,. '
=
j]
MILLSTONE UNIT 1 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP)
SALP RESULTS - AUGUST 1985 (ASSESSMENT PERIOD - SEPTEMBER 1983 THROUGH FEBRUARY 1985)
FUNCTIONAL AREA CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 1.
PLAllT OPERATIONS X
2.
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS X
3, MAINTENANCE X
4.
SURVEILLANCE X
5.
FIRE PROTECTION X
6.
7.
SECURITY AND SAFEGUARDS X
8.
REFUELING X
O 9.
LICENSING ACTIVITIES X
L l
i O
-p MILLSTONE UNIT 1 l
w SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP)
SALP RESULTS - MARCH 1984 (ASSESSMENT PERIOD - SEPTEMBER 1982 THROUGH AUGUST 1983)
FUNCTIONAL AREA CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 f
1.
PLANT OPERATIONS X
2.
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS X
3.
MAINTENANCE X
4.-
SURVEILLANCE X
5.
FIRE PROTECTION X
6.
7.
SECURITY AND SAFEGUARDS X
8.
REFUELING X
.O 9.
LICENSING ACTIVITIES X
I l
l l
l>
i O
i i
l
P e
MILLSTONE UNIT 1
(]
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP)
SALP RESULTS - JANUARY 1983 (ASSESSMENT PERIOD - SEPTEMBER 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 1982)
FUNCTIONAL AREA CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2 CATEGORY 3 1.
PLANT OPERATIONS X
2.
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS X
3.
MAINTENANCE X
4.
SURVEILLANCE X
5.
FIRE PROTECTION X
6.
7.
SECURITY AND SAFEGUARDS X
8.
REFUELING X
O 9.
LICENSING ACTIVITIES X
O
O MILLSTONE UNIT 1 MAJOR UNIT MODIFICATIONS SINCE POL ISSUANCE
-o-8 x 8 RELOAD FUEL 1 o
HIGH ENERGY PIPE BREAK O
o 0FF-GAS /RADWASTE SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS (ALARA) o FEEDWATER SPARGER REPLACEMENTS o
TORUS MODIFICATIONS o
SEISMIC ANCHORAGE OF EQUIPMENT o
SElSMIC PIPE HANGERS (IE BULLETIN 79-14) o ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION o
MASONRY WALLS (IE BULLETIN 80-11) l O
O MILLST NE UNIT 1 MAJOR UNIT MODIFICATIONS SINCE POL ISSUANCE o
SECURITY SYSTEMS o
ATWS o
PLANT PROCESS COMPUTER o
PLANT-SPECIFIC SIMULATOR o
APPENDIX R.
o PUBLIC ALERTING SYSTEM o
SCRAM DISCHARGE VOLUME MODIFICATIONS o
CONDENSER RETUBE O
MILLSTONE UNIT 1 RESPONSE TO TMI ACTION PLAN o
HARDWARE MODIFICATIONS POST-ACCIDENT SAMPLE SYSTEM EMERGENCY OPERATIONS FACILITY PUBLIC ALERTING SYSTEM HYDR 0 GEN MONITOR HIGH-RANGE RADIATION MONITORS POST-ACCIDENT MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION o
OTHER INITIATIVES EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES EMERGENCY PLANNING UPGRADED SHIFT STAFFING LEVELS O
llO
q&(
O AN OVERVIEW OF THE MILLSTONE UNIT 1 PLANT OPERATING PERFORMANCE THROUGH THE NRC BYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP)
' O fl]+
bos i
O
h 4
O SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE PROGRAM DBJECTIVES
-AN INTEGRATED NRC STAFF EFFORT l
COLLECT INFORMATION EVALUATE LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
-SUPPLEMENTS NORMAL REGULATORY PROGRAM
-ALLOCATION OF NRC RESOURCES
-IMPROVE LICENSEE PERFORMANCE
{
L O
O INFORMATION SAINED FROM SALP APPRAISAL PERIODS SEPTEMBER 1, 1983 - FEBRUARY 28, 1985
-HIGH DEGREE OF MANAGEMENT ATTENTION AND PERFORMANCE NOTED
-IMPROVEMENT NEEDED IN DESIGN CONTROLS AND SOLID RADIOACTIVE WA3TE TRANSPORTATION QUALITY CONTROL SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 - AUGUST 31, 1983
-INVOLVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND PLANT PERSONNEL WAS EVIDENT AND CONTRIBUTED TO GOOD PERF0i;MANCE
-IMPROVEMENT NEEDED IN PROGRAMS FOR THE GAS TURBINE GENERATOR, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING AND IN THE CONTROL OF PLANT VALVE POSITIONS SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 - AUGUST 31, 1982
-AMPLE RESOURCES APPEAR TO BE EFFECTIVELY USED
-IMPROVEMENT NEEDED TO MINIMIZE ERRORS BY SECURITY PERSONNEL JULY 1, 1980
- JUNE 30, 1981
-MANAGEMENT AGGRESSIVELY ORIENTED TOWARD NUCLEAR SAFETY
-IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN RADIATION PROTECTION, SECURITY SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND PLANT PROCEDURES JULY 1, 1979
- JUNE 30, 1980
-AVERAGE PERFORMANCE WITH NO CHANGE IN INSPECTION SCOPE
-IMPROVEMENT NEEDED IN CONTROL OF VALVE POSITIONS AND IN RADIATION PROTECTION O
O FUNCTIONAL AREAS:
- 1. PLANT DPERATIONS
- 2. RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS
- 3. MAINTENANCE
- 4. SURVEILLANCE TESTING
- 5. FIRE PROTECTION & HOUSEKEEPING
- 7. SECURITY & SAFESUARDS B. REFUELING & OUTAGE MANAGEMENT
- 9. LICENSING ACTIVITIES 4
O
..Q Go CRITERIA AND RATINGS:
- 1. MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT IN ASSURING QUALITY
- 2. APPROACH TO RESOLUTION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES
- 3. RESPONSIVENESS TO NRC INITIATIVES
- 4. ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
- 5. REPORTING AND ANALYSIS OF EVENTS
- 6. STAFFING (INCLUDING MANAGENENT)
- 7. TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND QUALIFICATION O
i I
O
O a
PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES CATEGORY 1 : NRC
- REDUCED ATTENTION MAY BE APPROPRIATE LICENSEE - MANAGEMENT IS AGGRESSIVE
- RESOURCES ARE AMPLE AND EFFECTIVE CATEGORY 2 - NRC
- MAINTAIN NORMAL LEVEL OF ATTENTION LICENSEE - MANAGEMENT ATTENTION IS EVIDENT O
- assouaces aae aoeoua's a~o asa=oaa='v aaa'r==
CATEGORY 3 - NRC
- INCREASED ATTENTION LICENSEE - CORRECT WEAKNESSES IN MANAGEMENT ATTENTION
- RESOURCES APPEAR TO BE STRAINED i
O J
y-,,-,---------.-,._...r--,.,_._,m
....,ry-,--mm,-,.,,--
O PLANT OPERATIONS AREA INCLUDES-
-FACILITY OPERATIONS
-ENGINEERING BUPPORT
-DESIGN CONTROL
-TRAINING
-BTAFFING O
OVERALL-
-GOOD PERFORMANCE O
O PLANT OPERATIONS INDICATIONS OF STRONG PERFORMANCE:
-TWO YEAR PERIOD BETWEEN RPS TRIPS (AUGUST 1983 - AUGUST 1985)
INCLUDING A 374 DAY TURBINE-GENERATOR ON LINE PERIOD
-KNOWLEDGEABLE AND MOTIVATED OPERATIONS STAFF
-MANAGEMENT ACTIVE IN DAILY OPERATIONS
-HURRICANE GLORIA (SEPTEMBER 27, 1985)
-PREPARATIONS WITH SENIOR MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT
-ACTIONS ANTICIPATED A LOSS OF ALL OFF-SITE ELECTRICAL POWER
-BOTH REACTORS SHUTDOWN AND DECAY HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEMS IN SERVICE BEFORE OFF-SITE POWER WAS LOST FOR 19.5 HOURS
-CRITICAL REVIEWS BY SAFETY COMMITTEES
-DISCOVERY AND FAILURE ANALYSIS OF SAFETY RELATED RELAY DEFECT (FEBRUARY 1982)
INDICATIONS OF WEAK PERFORMAM E
-EMERGENCY GAS TURBINE GENERATOR PROBLEMS (AUGUST 1982 - JULY 1983)
-PLANT VALVE POSITION CONTROL (1982 - 1983)
O
l O
PLANT DPERATIONS SALP APPRAISAL PERIODS:
RATING:
BEPTEMBER 1, 1983 - FEBRUARY 28, 1985 CATEGORY 1 CONSISTENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 - AUGUST 31, 1983 CATEGORY 2 SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 - AUGUST 31, 1982 CATEGORY 1 JULY 1, 1980
- JUNE 30, 1981 CATEGORY 1 l
l JULY 1, 1979
- JUNE 30, 1980 AVERAGE PERFORMANCE llO I
H
A m
O O
+
RADIDLOGICAL CONTROLS AREA INCLUDES-
-RADIATION PROTECTION
-RADIATION WASTE MANAGEMENT
-TRANSPORTATION
-EFFLUENT CONTROL AND MONITORING DVERALL-
-STRONGER MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT NEEDED CONCERNING THE USE OF RADIATION WORK PERMITS AND OVER RADIDACTIVE WASTE TRANSPORTATION O
O RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS INDICATIONS OF STRONG PERFORMANCES
-RADIATION PROGRAM IS WELL DEFINED AND BUPPORTED WITH ADEQUATE RESOURCES
-GOOD PERFORMANCE IN MANAGEMENT OF HIGH RADIATION WORK, j
CONTAMINATION CONTROL, PERSONNEL MONITORING, RADIOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE, i
EFFLUENT CONTROL
-ALARA PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED TO ANALYZE TASKS AND MONITOR PERFORMANCE
-CORPORATE GOALS ESTABLISHED (1985)
-SOLID AND LIQUID RADIDACTIVE WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAMS
-CORPORATE GOALS ESTABLISHED (1982 - 1985)
INDICATIONS OF A WEAK PROGRAM:
-WORK NOT CONTROLED TO THAT AUTHORIZED BY RADIATION WORK PERMITS
-LACK OF EFFECTIVE QUALITY CONTROLS FOR SOLID RADIDACTIVE WASTE SHIPMENTS ($3,000 AND $5,000 CIVIL PENALTIES ISSUED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN DECEMBER 1984 AND MARCH 1985)
O
O I
RADIDLOGICAL CONTROLS SALP APPRAISAL PERIODS:
RATING:
SEPTEMBER 1, 1983 - FEBRUARY 28, 1985 CATEGORY 2 CONSISTENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 - AUGUST 31, 1983 CATEGORY 1 SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 - AUGUST.ii, 1982 CATEGORY 1 JULY 1, 1980
- JUNE 30, 1981 CATEGORY 2 JULY 1, 1979
- JUNE 30, 1980 AVERAGE PERFDRMANCE O
O
lo r
MAINTENANCE AREA INCLUDES-
-PREVENTIVE AND CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE OVERALL-
-VERY SOOD PERFORMANCE ro
'O
O MAINTENANCE INDICATIONS OF STRONG PERFDRMANCE:
-LOW RATE OF RECURRING FAILURES
-HIGH SUCCESS RATE IN PASSING POST-MAINTENANCE ACCEPTANCE TESTING
-BTRONG PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
-STAFF ENGINEERS AEGIGNED DIRECTLY TO MAINTENANCE AND I & C DEPARTMENTS
-DETAILED MACHINERY HISTORY RECORDS
~ O O
):
O MAINTENANCE SALP APPRAISAL PERIODS:
RATING:
BEPTEMBER 1, 1983 - FEBRUARY 28, 1985 CATEGORY 1 CONSISTENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1992 - AUGUST 31, 1983 CATEGORY 1 SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 - AUGUST 31, 1982 CATEGORY 1 JULY 1, 1980
- JUNE 30, 1981 CATEGORY 1 JULY 1, 1979
.- JUNE 30, 1990 AVERAGE PERFORMANCE O
~
1 I
0
\\
O r
SURVEILLANCE TESTING AREA INCLUDES-
-IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SURVEILLANCE l
-INSERVICE INSPECTION AND TESTING PER ASME B&PV CODE l
-ADDITIONAL TESTING AND INSPECTION FOR EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY l
OVERALL-
-GOOD PERFORMANCE I
O
O SURVEILLANCE TESTING INDICATIONS OF STRONG PERFORMANCE:
-PROGRAMS ARE GENERALLY WELL MANAGED AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS MET
-EMERGENCY GAS TURBINE GENERATOR RELIABILITY PROGRAM THROUGH IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE (1983 - 1985)
-RPS 8: ECCS INSTRUMENTATION RELIABILITY PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE SETPOINT DRIFT (MICRO-SWITCH CONTACT RESISTANCE MONITORING) (1983 - 1985)
-INSERVICE TEST PROGRAM EXTENDS TO BALANCE OF PLANT EQUIPMENT
-INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGRAM MANAGED BY HIGHLY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS
-COMPUTER DRIVEN ULTRASONIC EQUIPMENT USED FOR ANALYSIS (1993 - 1985)
-ELECTRONIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT PERFORMED ON RADIOGRAPHS FOR ANALYSIS (1983 - 1985)
~
INDICATIONS OF WEAK PERFORMANCE:
-FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT COMMITMENTS NECESSARY TO MINIMIZE PERSONNEL ERRORS DURING INSTRUMENT TESTING (MARCH 1983)
-INSUFFICIENT MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT IN LAST CONTAINMENT INTEGRATED LEAK RATE TEST (JUNE 1984) i O
- - ~
I O
I SURVEILLANCE TESTING BALP APPRAISAL PERIODS:
RATING:
SEPTEMBER 1, 1983 - FEBRUARY 28, 1985 CATEGORY 1 CONSISTENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 - AUGUST 31, 1983 CATEGORY 2 SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 - AUGUST 31, 1982 CATEGORY 1 JULY 1, 1980
- JUNE 30, 1981 CATEGORY 1 JULY 1, 1979
- JUNE 30, 1990 AVERAGE PERFORMANCE
~O O
O
'. ;f FIRE PROTECTION 8: HOUSEKEEPING AREA INCLUDES-
-IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DETECTION AND SUPPRESSION EQUIPMENT
-MAINTENANCE OF FIRE BARRIERS
-FIRE BRIGADE STAFFING, TRAINING AND DRILLS
-PLANT HOUSEKEEPING wm DVERALL-
~
-GOOD PERFORMANCE O
, ~.
O FIRE PROTECTION & HOUSEKEEPING I
~
INDICATIONS 0.7 STRONG PERFORMANCE:
-NO SIGNIFICANT IN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
-LIAISON ESTABLISHED WITH WATERFORD FIRE DEPARTMENT
-CONTROLS ESTABLISHED FOR COMBUSTIBLES AND IGNITION SOURCES j
-FACILITY IS KEPT CLEAN
-MOST PLANT AREAS ARE ACCESSIBLE DURING REACTOR OPERATION WITHOUT PROTECTIVE CLOTHING (1982 - 1985)
-ROUTINE MANAGEMENT INSPECTIONS DURING OUTAGE PERIODS INDICATIONS OF WEAK PERFORMANCE:
h
-IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO CORRECT CLUTTER IN YARD AREA (LICENSEE HAS STARTED TO TAKE ACTION)
V 1
l l
i t
i o
O FIRE PROTECTION & HOUSEKEEPING SALP APPRAISAL PERIODS:
RATING 3
SEPTEMBER 1, 1983 - FEBRUARY 28, 1985 CATEGORY 1 IMPROVING SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 - AUGUST 31, 1983 CATEGORY 1 SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 - AUGUST 31, 1982 CATEGORY 1 JULY 1, 1980
- JUNE 30, 1981 CATEGORY 1 JULY 1, 1979
- JUNE 30, 1980 AVERAGE PERFORMANCE
~ O O
y
_m
-.--,--r,w.-y,-.---,
e,,
,-.,yv,,
,,----y w----
e t
O EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AREA INCLUDES-
-PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
-EMERGENCY FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT
-PROCEDURES
-PERFORMANCE DURING EXERCISES OVERALL-
-SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE O
--,----r
4 O
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS INDICATIONS OF STRONG PERFDRMANCE:
l
-FULL TIME COORDINATOR DN-SITE (1982 - 1985)
-PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH DETAILED PROCEDURES
-THOROUGH LICENSEE CRITIQUE OF NOVEMBER 7, 1985 EXERCISE INDICATIONS OF WEAK PERFORMANCE:
-LACK OF TIMELY COMPLETION OF CERTAIN FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
-DELAYS IN INSTALLATION OF HIGH RANGE STACK RADIATION MONITOR (1983)
-DELAYS IN ESTABLISHING A TRAINING PROGRAM (1983 - 1984)
~
O 0
4
SALP APPRAISAL PERIODS:
RATING:
SEPTEMBER 1, 1983 - FEBRUARY 28, 1985 CATEGORY 1 CONSISTENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 - AUGUST 31, 1983 CATEBORY 2 SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 - AUGUST 31, 1982 CATEGORY 1 JULY 1, 1980
- JUNE 30, 1981 CATEGORY 1 JULY 1, 1979
- JUNE 30, 1980 AVERAGE PERFORMANCE O
e O
9 0
4 SECURITY & BAFEGUARDS AREA INCLUDES-
-STATION PHYSICAL PROTECTION
-NUCLEAR MATERIALS ACCOUNTABILITY DVERALL-
-GOOD PERFORMANCE O
O
BECURITY 8: SAFEGUARDS INDICATIONS OF STRONG PERFORMANCE:
)
)
-MANAGEMENT ATTENTION HAS BEEN EVIDENT AND FOCUSED AT AN EFFECTIVE 1
PROGRAM
-COMPREHENSIVE CORPORATE SECURITY AUDIT PROGRAM (1981 - 1985)
-STRONG DRUG AND ALCOHOL AWARENESS PROGRAM (1982 - 1985)
AND HAVE TAKEN A "NO NONSENSE" APPROACH TO THESE PROBLEMS
-PROMPT CORRECTIVE ACTION TO NRC AND LICENSEE IDENTIFIED ISSUES INDICATIONS OF WEAK PERFORMANCE:
-POOR INITIAL RELIABILITY OF A COMPLEX SECURITY SYSTEM (1981-1982)
-EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF ERRORS BY SECURITY PERSONNEL (1981-1982)
(
O
O i
SECURITY 4: BAFESUARDS SALP APPRAISAL PERIODS:
RATING:
SEPTEMBER 1, 1983 - FEBRUARY 28, 1995 CATEGORY 1 CONSISTENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 - AUGUST 31, 1983 CATEGORY 1 SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 - AUGUST 31, 1982 CATEGORY 2 JULY 1, 1980
- JUNE 30, 1981 CATEGORY 2 JULY 1, 1979
- JUNE 30, 1980 AVERAGE PERFORMANCE LO l
i l
l O
m m,
9 0
l REFUELING & DUTAGE MANAGEMENT AREA INCLUDES-
-MANAGEMENT OF ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH REFUELING AND OTHER DUTAGES OVERALL-
-IMPROVEMENT NEEDED O
O
O REFUELING 8: OUTAGE MANAGEMENT INDICATIONS OF STRONG PERFORMANCE:
-MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVE ON-SHIFT DURING OUTAGE
-EXTENSIVE OUTAGE PLANNING
-DETAILED COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF ACTIVITY SCHEDULES (1980 - 1985)
INDICATIONS OF WEAK PERFORMANCE:
-FAILURE TO PERFORM DETAILED PREOPERATIONAL TESTING OF NEW OR MODIFIED SYSTEMS:
-POST ACCIDENT LIQUID SAMPLING SYSTEM (1983)
($40,000 CIVIL PENALTY FULLY MITIGATED)
-LOSS OF OFF-SITE POWER DETECTION LOGIC MODIFICATIONS (1970 - 1975)
-FAILURE TO FOLLON-THROUGH AND VERIFY COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS MADE TO THE NRC - VALVE CONTROL REQUIRED BY SEP IN 1984 l
O l
l
O I-REFUELING 8: OUTAGE MANAGEMENT P
SALP APPRAISAL PERIODS:
RATING:
SEPTEMBER 1, 1983 - FEBRUARY 28, 1985 CATEGORY 2 SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 - AUGUST 31, 1983 CATEGORY 1 SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 - AUGUST 31, 1982 CATEGORY 1 JULY 1, 1980
- JUNE 30, 1981 CATEGORY 1 JULY 1, 1979
- JUNE 30, 1980 AVERAGE PERFORMANCE
~ O e-O
9 O
/
LICENSING AREA INCLUDES-
-PERFORMANCE IN LICENSING MATTERS OVERALL-
-GOOD PERFORMANCE O
O
9 e
LICENSING INDICATIONS OF STRONG PERFORMANCE:
~
-HIGH LEVEL MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT
-CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF TECHNICAL ISSUES
-RESPONSIVENESS TO NRC INITIATIVES
-EXTENSIVE EVALUATIONS INTO POST-ACCIDENT COMBUSTIBLE GAS GENERATION AND CONTROL (1982 - 1983)
-CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO TECHNICAL QUESTIONS IS ROUTINELY EMPLOYED
-COMBUSTIBLE GAS CONTROL, NORMALLY OPERATE AT 1% OXYGEN INDICATIONS OF WEAK PERFORMANCE:
-REPORTS FOR LICENSING ANALYSIS HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED IN A TIMELY MANNER (1983 - 1985) l l
O l
O LICENSING ACTIVITIES SALP APPRAISAL PERIODS:
RATING:
BEPTEMBER 1, 1983 - FEBRUARY 28, 1985 CATEGORY 1 CONSISTENT SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 - AUGUST 31, 1983 CATEGORY 1 SEPTEMBER 1, 1991 - AUGUST 31, 1982 CATEGORY 1 JULY 1, 1980
- JUNE 30, 1981 NOT INCLUDED JULY 1, 1979
- JUNE 30, 1990 NOT INCLUDED O
O
'O APPRAISAL PERIODS
(
FUNCTIONAL AREAS:
9/ 1/93 9/ 1/82 9/ 1/81 7/ 1/B0 7/ 1/79 2/28/85 B/31/83 8/31/02 6/30/81 6/30/80 PLANT DPERATIONS 1
2 1
1 AVERAGE RADIDLOGICAL CONTROLS 2
1 1
2 AVERAGE MAINTENANCE 1
1 1
1 AVERAGE SURVEILLANCE TESTING 1
2 1
1 AVERAGE FIRE PROTECTION & HOUSEKEEPING 1
1 1
1 AVERAGE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 1
2 1
1 AVERAGE SECURITY & SAFEGUARDS 1
1 2
2 AVERAGE j
REFUELING & DUTAGE MANAGEMENT 2
1 1
1 AVERAGE LICENSING ACTIVITIES 1
1 1
NOT INCLUDED O
.=
O IlFORMATION GAIED FROM SALP APPRAISAL PERIODS SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 - FEBRUARY 28, 1985
-HIGH DEGREE OF MANAGEfENT ATTENTION AND PERFORMANCE NOTED
-IMPROVEMENT NEEDED IN DESIGN CONTROLS AND SOLID RADIOACTIVE NASTE TRANSPORTATION QL%LITY CONTROL SEPTEMBER 1, 1982 - AUGUST 31, 1983
-INVOLVEMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND PLANT PERSONNEL NAS EVIDENT AND CONTRIBUTED TO GOOD PERFORMANCE
-IMPROVEMENT NEEDED IN PROGRAMS FOR THE GAS TURBINE GENERATOR, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING AND IN THE CONTROL OF PLANT VALVE POSITIONS SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 - AUGUST 31, 1982 O
-aar'= a==ouace= arecaa To== eerscT1v='v uSan
-IMPROVEMENT NEEDED TO MINIMIZE ERRORS BY SECURITY PERSONNEL JULY 1, 1980
- JUNE 30, 1981
-MANAGEMENT AGGRESSIVELY ORIENTED TOWARD NUCLEAR SAFETY
-IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN RADIATION PROTECTION, SECURITY SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND PLANT PROCEDURES JULY 1, 1979
- JUNE 30, 1980
-AVERAGE PERFORMANCE WITH NO CHANGE IN INSPECTION SCOPE
-IMPROVEMENT NEEDED IN CONTROL OF VALVE POSITIONS AND IN RADIATION PROTECTION i
O i
l