ML20136G157

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of Commission 851115 Discussion/Possible Vote on Full Power OL for Facility in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-76. Supporting Documentation Encl
ML20136G157
Person / Time
Site: River Bend Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 11/15/1985
From:
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8511220269
Download: ML20136G157 (92)


Text

V ORIGINAL s

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA F

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

In the matter of:

COMMISSION MEETING i

, I, Discussion /Possible Vote on Full Power Operating License

'd, for River Bend (Public Meeting)

Docket No.

Location: Washington, D. C.

Date: Friday, Nc.vember 15, 1985 Pages:

1 - 76 8511220269 851115 PDR 10CFR J

PT9.7 PDR ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters 1625 I St., N.W.

Suite 921

~

M Washington, D.C.

20006 (202) 293-3950 g

L

6 v

f a

\\e 1

D I SCL A 1 M ER 2

3 4

5 0

This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7

United States Nuclear Regulatory Cecmission held on Friday, 8

lbverter 15, 1985 in the Cono i s s i on 's office at 1717 H Street, 9

N. iJ., Washington, D.C.

The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.

This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.

13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.

Expressions of cpinion in this transcEip g

17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.

N.

18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Cemmission may 21 authorize.

22 23 24 25 c

T 1

8, 1

UNITED STATES OF AMEHICA 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 DISCUSSION /POSSIBLE VOTE ON FULL POWER OPERATING LICENSE FOR HIVER BEND 6

7 PUBLIC MEETING 8

Hoom 1130 9

1717 H Street, N.W.

10 Washington, D.C.

11 Friday, 15 November 1985 12 13 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 14 10:05 a.m.,

the Honorable NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the 15 Commission, presiding.

16 17 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

18 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 19 THOMAS HOWERTS, Commissioner 20 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 21 FHEDEHICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner 22 LANDO ZECH, Commissioner 23 24 25

. ~. _ _. _ _.. _. _.. _ _ _ _ _, _. _ _. - _ _ _.

3 J

l 1

STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:

1 2

H.

DENTON 4

3 S.

STERN j

4 R.

MARTIN 5

T.

NOVAX 1

i 6

E.

CHRISTENBURRY

?

S.

CHILK 8

H.

PLAINE l

9 F.

CRANE i

r r

10 R.

BERNERO I

I 1

)

11 C.

BERLINGER I

i

(

12 H.

THOMPSON 13 M.

VERGILLIO 1'

14 E.

JOHNSON l

4 15 J.

KNIGHT l

1 1

t 16 l

17 F.

MURRILL 18 W.

J.

CAHILL

[

1 i

20 i

21 l

l 22 1

23 i

24 r

25

(

F

e FF 3

1 PROCEED IN O S 2

CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Good morning ladies and 3

gentlemen.

4 The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss, and 5

it the Commission feels ready to decide on whether or not a 6

tull-power license should be granted for the River Bend 7

Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1.

8 On August 29th, 1985, the NHC issued a low-power 9

license for the River Bend plant authorizing fuel load,,

10 preoriticality testing and low-power operation for power 11 levels up to 5 percent tull power.

12 The Statt has prepared a presentation.

Supplement 5 13 to the FSER has not been received by the Commission.

I 14 understand that the Supplement covers many issues, and I 15 would Itke the Statt to give us a listing of items covered by 16 Supplement 5 as they delineated in the Statt*s briefing 17 paper.

18 I am particularly interested in the changes to the 19 technical speos, as I am sure the other Commissioners are, and 20 whether the Statt feels that the final technical speoitications 21 are satislaotory.

22 I understand that members of the NHC Statt, as well 23 as representatives of the Oult State Utilities are available 24 to answer any questions we might have.

As is our usual 25 practice, we will give the representatives of OSU an

s (4'

4 1

opportunity to make a statement aiter the Staii brleting.

2 Bob Martin, Region IV Administrator is here with us 3

today.

Other Region IV statt will be listening in on today*s 4

meeting over the telephone.

5 At the conclusion of the Stati presentation, I 6

intend to poll the Commissioners to see whether they are 7

prepared to vote.

And it so, to vote on whether or not to 8

issue River Bend a tull-power license at this time.

9 Would any other Commissloners 1ike to ofier any l

10 comments at this time?

1 11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

No, i

12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

No.

13 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

No.

14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

No.

15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

All right Then let me turn 16 the meeting over to Mr. Denton.

17 MR. DENTON:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

16 We have at the table today, Steve Stern, the Project 19 Manager.

He has prepared a presentation of about 20 minutes 20 to go through the prtnoipal unique teatures of this plant.

21 Tom Novak on my left will be assisting.

22 Bob Martin and I will provide the regional input 23 I did want to mention at the outset that we recommend 24 that you issue a tull-power Itoonse.

This is a case in which 25 we found the Licensee to be a very responsive management, and

[A 1

that safety concerns that were identified during review, were 2

vigorously pursued and resolved.

So, I think you will find we T

3 have very tow issues to bring to your attention today.

4 With that introduction, Steve?

5 MR. STERN:

May I have slide number 2,

please?

i 6

[S11 del I

7 What we plan to do this morning is to run through i

l 8

the Licensee plant background.

Then briefly discuss several 9

key selected issues.

After that, Region IV will then cover j

10 construction overview, low-power operations overview, SALP q

11 ratings and allegations.

12 You have previously been brieted, in the latter part 13 of October in closed session, by O! on investigations. We do i

14 not plan to cover that today.

15 And, on 2.206 petitions, we have none.

1 j

16 And we will then end with our recommendation, which i.

17 Mr. Denton has already given, 18 So, it I may have slide number 3 j

19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

On the investigations i

20 part, is there something additional, at least on the toch spoo 21 issuost I don't recall having heard a great deal about that I

22 previously.

23 MM. STERN:

Not that I am aware of, sir.

l l

24 MR. NOVAK:

What Mr. Stern is referring to is the j

25 Ottlee at Investigation, as opposed to the CIA review of the 1

%b b

Yb j

6 1

technical specifications.

j 2

MR. DENTON:

The CIA was looking at the problem 4

1 3

generically.

The information my statt told me trom them is l

i i

1 I

4 that they didn't have any specitio problem attiliated with i

l 5

River Mend, although they are still continuing with their L

I I

i 6

generio audit, I guess it is, more than an investigation.

1 7

[ Slide 3 I

the owners are Gutt State

]

8 MR. STERN:

River Wend I

1, 9

Utilities and Cajun Electric Power Cooperative.

i l

1 i

10 COMMISSIONER MOWERTS:

What is the percentage?

i c

I i

11 MR. STERN:

I believe it is 70 percent Gutt State,

[

i i

I 4

12 40 percent Cooperative.

Gutt State is the operator.

1 i

j j

13 The plant is a BWM6.

It is smaller than Grand

)

j 14 Guit.

It is rated at 2894 megawatts thermal, as compared to i

15 3333 megawatts thermal for Grand Gutt, which is an earlier 6.

)

j 16 The containment is MARK !!!, the A&R constructor is j

t E

j 17 Stone & Webster.

t j

le By the way, River Bend has 424 tuel assembles versus l

i j

19 800 for Grand Gulf, although the power density is the same, i

j 20 The site is two miles east of the bank of the J

I I

21 Mississippi River in West Feltotana Parish, It is about 18 i

j 22 miles trom Maton Rouge, 25 miles from the exact conter of l

23 Naton Rouge.

The area is rural, i

j 24 It I may have slide number 4.

i i

l 24 CS11de3 1

1 i

i i

i l

i

i i

t at least my l

1 During the FSAM, the key issue l

l I

the key issue that did come up were the TDI l

l 2

feeling i

t 3

diesels.

M1ver Wend's TDIs are the same as Shoreham, and they I

as with Shoreham, they have a nameplate rating of l

4 are built 5

3500 kilowatts, i

f 6

River Bend was faced with two ways of qualifying the I

{

?

diesels.

Either they could test them to 10 to the 7th cycles 8

as Shoreham did, or they could scale the results for their t

9 unique mechanical properties.

Niver Bend chose to scale the l

10 results.

l 11 Their material properties of the orankshalt was 12 slightly weaker than Shoreham*s, and as a result of the 13 scaling, the Statt was satistled and River Bend was satistled, I

14 that they were qualified at 3130 kilowatts as opposed to 3300 l

15 kilowatts for Shoreham, r

16 Now the Statt feels that River Mond meets the 17 general design ortteria, especially in light of the tact that 18 the maximum load that will be imposed on these diesels after S I

19 percent power during an emergency, will be less than 2900 i

i 20 kilowatts.

So we do have a margin in here, in addition to the j

21 tact that more conservatively rated than Shoreham, we also I

22 have at least a 200 kw margin on the diesels.

23 Equipuent qual 1i104tlon.

[

24 At the time of the issuance of the low-power license l

1 25 at the end of August, the Licensee att11 had about 15 items f

l

x

'3 '

8 s

1 representing about 220 pieces et equipment which had not yot 2

passed through their equipment qualification program.

3 On November 4th, the Licensee informed us that all 4

4 items had been qualified.

5 Subsequently, as a result of a tield design change,

=

6 the Licensee discovered on the 8th of this month, that about l

[

7 20 junction boxes had not properly been sealed with their T

8 equipment qualitioation program.

Again, the Licensee l

l, 9

discovered this.

1 10 The junction boxes were sealed within the timeirame 11 permitted on the action statement in the technical t

12 specification.

13 The Licensee then commenced a thorough review of j

14 all field design changes and then identitled a problem with j

i 15 supplementing bracing in the standby service water system.

l t

16 The system was declared inoperable, and the system brought

[

I

(

17 down to cold shutdown where it is today.

I i

1 18 We expect these changes the Licensee informs us I

l 19 that they will probably have repairs completed today and 20 should be back up approaching operating pressure by tonight or 21 tomorrow morning.

t 22 COMMISSIONER ALSELSTINE:

So I take it, Steve, that 23 the situation on environmental qualification is that now the 3

24 Licensee *s position is that everything is donet 23 MR. STEMN:

Yes, i

i

9 1

COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Has the Statt done an 2

audit of EQ performanoe?

3 MR. MARTIN:

It I may.

From an inspection 4

standpoint, there are limited inspections which continue to be 5

done, that are somewhat EQ related, in terms of the general 6

quality program, with some emphasis on EQ matters.

7 We have not conducted the tormal extensive EQ audit 8

which are planned for all plants.

That one is planned for 9

sometime in the future.

We are still in what I think could 10 properly be called the developmental phase of that inspection 11 program at this point.

A tow developmental inspections have 12 been done at a few plants, and they will be captured by the 13 program.

14 But a very broad scale confirmatory type inspection 15 has not been done, not in that sense.

16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Does the limited look that 17 either the Region or NNN has done thus far give you a basis 18 for reaching a conclusion about the ettectiveness of their EQ 19 program one way or the other, or does it really have to 20 await the extensive audit?

21 MR. MARTIN:

No.

I don *t think it has to await the 22 extensive audit.

I think that based on the work that we have I think this is probably 23 done from an inspection standpoint looking at their program, the 24 true trem en NMR standpoint 25 program appears to be etteotive trom our standpoint.

Py' 10 1

Looking at the way this company has generally 2

implemented those programs and the pursuit that they give to 3

any deficiencies that they have found in the other programs 4

that they have implemented, leads us to a sense of confidence.

5 We do not have that additional confidence you get from having 6

performed our own extensive audit.

7 MR. DENTON:

We did the same depth of audit on this 8

plant that we have done on most of the recent NTOLs.

9 When Steve replied we had not done an audit, that is 10 that special combined team of everyone doing a real in-depth

  • 11 audit at selected facilities.

I doubt -- we don *t intend to 12 do that at every NTOL.

We just don't have the resources 13 budgeted for it.

That was a more selective in-depth look to 14 see how well normal audits were working.

15 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

So what you are saying is, you 16 have no reason to believe that equipment qualitication is not the requirements for that have not been met in a 17 18 satisfactory manner?

19 MR. MARTIN:

That's correct.

20 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

Thank you.

21 MR. STERN:

And, in fact, the low-power license did 22 have a condition that is being removed.

We are satistled.

23 On tire protection, the licensing meets all the 24 requirements of the Statt Branch Technical Position. Branch 25 Technical Position with eight deviations.

They are all deemed

11 1

acceptable by the, Staff.

2 At the time of the low-power license, modifications 3

had to be complete on the alternate shutdown system, and they 4

will be complete prior to exceeding 5 percent power, 5

In addition, there were some cable wraps that had to and I believe control 6

be done on the fuel building and the 7

building, and these have been completed and we are satisfied 8

with that.

I

.9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

You say Branch Technical 10 Position.

Does that include Appendix R) 11 MR. STERN:

It is not an Appendix R plant.

This 12 precedes.

But, I think in essence this does meet Appendix R.

13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

What do you mean by it is not 14 an Appendix R plant?

15 MR. STERN:

I think it precedes 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

It succeeds, actually.

i 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

It what?

18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Appendix R only applied to 19 plants that had operating licenses prior to the date of the 20 Rule, as I recall the specitted date, 21 MR. DENTON:

And since that time we have used the 22 Branch Technical Position and that is what all plants have 23 met, and this plant meets it also.

24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

I take it, as I recall in 25 previous NTOL cases, what you have said is, you have done a

12 1

comparison of the plant a g a i n s.t Appendix R as well as the

-2 Branch Technical Position.

And in each case you have been 3

able to tell us that the plant satisfies those requirements, 4

were they to apply directly to the plant.

5 And I take it that is the case in this plant as 6

well?

7 MR. DENTON:

Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Okay. Thank you.

9 MR. STERN:

On hydrogen control', River Bend is a 10 MARK III containment.

The Licensee is using ignitors to burn 11 ott low concentrations of hydrogen in the event of an accident.

12 The Licensee satisfies all the requirements of the 13 hydrogen rule of 10 CFR 50.44.

The Licensee is a member of 14 the Hydrogen Control Owners Group. The final a n a l y's i s of the 15 owners group is due sometime this winter.

The Licensee has

~

16 committed to implement any modifications in its control 17 system deemed necessary by the results ci the owners group 18 program by the first refueling outage.

t 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

The ACRS had made some comment 20 on hydrogen control.

I'm trying to find it.

21 Do you feel their comments satisfied?

22 MR. STERN:

Yes, we do.

23 MR. NOVNK:

In fact, Mr. Chairman, we went back to 24 the committee just to discuss hydrogen. They had originally 25 written a letter saying, certainly operation up to 5 percent E%

13 1

was acceptable.

And there was a lot of activity at that time 2

regarding hydrogen.

3 Late this iall we met with the committee, they 4

supported the issuance of a full-power license, and in ettect 5

adopted that the hydrogen issue is a generic issue.

The plant 6

can go up to power and should be permitted to operate, but 7

that these issues should be continued to be worked and we will B

keep the committee informed of the progress.

9 Bob Bernero is here.

Perhaps he could till you in, 10 just in a summary way, of how we believe we are responding to 11 the latest committee letter on it.

12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

But they had two other items, 13 performance of a PRA on seismic design margins for equipment 14 necessary for a shutdown.

15 And then development of emergency operating 16 procedures for containment damping as well as hydrogen issue.

17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

It would be helpful too, 18 when Bob describes how the Statt is approaching the hydrogen 19 control issue, if you would outline what the open questions 20 are for the MARK IIIs.

What is the nature of the question 21 that is still open, that is being examined?

22 MR. BERNERO:

Bob Bernero, NRC Statt, Division of 23 Systems Integration.

24 It we back up, there are three issues that you 21 actually raised in your question, Mr. Chairman.

14 1

The question of PHA applied to River Bend; the 2

question of severe accident venting, containment venting; and 3

hydrogen control as wEll.

And the latter two become quite 4

involved even with the first one.

5 The Applicant looked at, a modest PHA look, I would 6

call it, at the plant and has taken initial steps to look at 7

containment venting and hydrogen control 8

They have provided a preliminary analysis.

And, in 9

the preliminary analysis, an outstanding question with hydrogen 10 is that it is expected that hydrogen combustion is by ditiusion

~

11 ilame on the suppression pool.

And _this raises questions of 12 gradual overheating of equipment low, down close to the 13 suppression pool surface.

14 And, in the preliminary analysis they identified 15 some marginal cases that might need thermal shielding or 16 something like that.

That is sort of the corrective action 17 potential.

18 But I think we discussed this in a meeting some 19 months ago.

The preliminary analysis has a lot of uncertainty 20 with it, and the ACMS recognizes that as well. And, in the 21 quarter-scale test program that they are sponsoring as a 22 group, we are getting much better analyses on which to base 23 these thermal evaluations of whether the equipment will 24 survive for the full course of a degraded core event.

25 So the issues there are principally ones of equipment

15 1

survivability, not of containment integrity.

2 Now, they have just this week turnished me the 3

hydrogen control procedure for the MARK III containment.

I 4

have taken a quick look at it.

It is being distributed in 5

Statt.

It has to be married with the severe accident 6

containment pressure management procedure in an appropriate 7

way.

8 All of this will be undertaken over the course of 9

the coming year along with the severe accident closure i

10 evaluation where one looks at severe accident risks and looks 11 at the emergency procedure guidelines with respect to pressure 12 management or hydrogen control that till into control the 13 severe accident risk in the plant.

14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Bob, what kinds of l

15 equipment are located in that area, and what safety functions 16 do they perform?

17 MR. BERNERO:

As I recall, there were a couple of 18 level transmitters.

There were two other types of equipment, 19 and it was well into a number of burns, you know, with a 20 number of combustion cycles into the degraded core.

21 I believe the most important were reactor water 22 level instruments.

23 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

But you are talking about a 24 generic issue, not a specific issue 7 25 MR. BERNERO.

Yes, it really would be generic.

Many

16 1

people think it is specitio to River Bend because they don *t 2

have a containment spray.

Degraded core accidents occur 3

because you can't pump water in the core.

i 4

COMMISSIONER ZECH:

Right.

5 MR. BERNERO:

And, ii you can't pump water in the 6

core, what are the odds that you can pump it in the containment i

7 spray.

8 So, we look at the other MARK III containments as 9

possibly not having the benefit of th11r containment spray in 10 these circumstances.

11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

But you think it any corrective 12 action is needed as a result of generic resolution, that it 13 can be done at this plant?

14 MR. BERNERO:

Yes.

We foresee relatively modest 15 thermal shielding or something like that, rather than massive in the preliminary 16 change, because the equipment analyses 17 analysis, the equipment survives some of the burn.

It just 18 doesn't survive the full 75 percent of the metal-water 19 reaction, the condition of the rule.

20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

At least based on the 21 information you have now, 22 MR. BERNERO:

On the preliminary analysis, yes, 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Do you want to touch the other 24 items later, the other ACHS comments?

25 MR. BERNERO:

Well, the ACHS has heard the seismic

s 17 1

risk, or seismic margin I should say, evaluation that the 2

Applicant has done and appears to be satisfied with it.

3 Now, the seismic issue is also part of the severe 4

accident issue.

Does one treat seismic risk generically?

5 And the ACMS recognises in their final letter that 6

the Stati is looking at seismic risk generically in a number 7

of avenues.

8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

What about the containment 9

venting?

10 MR. BERNEMO:

The containment venting is part of the 11 severe accident closure.

And as I said, has to be reviewed 12 together with the hydrogen control procedures.

They have done 13 some preliminary work, but it is not finished yet.

14 CHAIEMAN PALLADINO:

Is this also a generio issue?

15 MR. BEENEMO:

Yes.

We are looking at all of the 16 MARK IIIs.

17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Okay.

18 MR. STERN:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move into 19 slide number 5,

which would be statting.

20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Just before you do that, I 21 have one other question on the TDI diesels.

22

[ Commissioner Roberts lett the meeting.3 23 I want to make sure I understand the approach that 24 was used here.

25 Are you saying that the approach was not to refurbish

m

~ _ _. _ _.

18 1

the diesels, as was done in some other cases.

But instead to i

2 show that the diesels were adequate for the actual load that 3

they would be subjected to here.

And that while the diesels i

4 may sutter from some of the same kinds of vulnerabilities as J

the Shoreham diesels, one, they are a bit stronger in terms of 6

the strength of the material, and two, the load is

?

substantially lower weaker than the Shoreham diesels.

I 8

MM. STERN:

But they are much more conservatively 1

9 loaded.

l 10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

But the load is so 11 low, or substantially lower that therefore, the diesel will 1

i I

12 still perform and function, even though it is weaker than the i

i i

13 Shoreham?

14 MM. STERN:

Yes.

And again, it is very marginal.

15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

It is what?

16 MR. STERN:

The tensile strength is within 5 percent.

I i

17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

But this is the orankshaft j

18 question where the one cracked it?

]

19 MR. STERN:

Yes.

20 MR. MARTIN:

!! I may point out, there was, in fact, 21 some-degree of refurbishment of those diesels, i

)

22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

But not the orankshafts?

23 MR. MARTIN:

But based owners' group recommendations,

[

l 24 following that pattern.

l l

25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

But they did not i

t a

?

4

.-y,-,, _

,..---y.

.,_._,,-._w.,_..,,,.m.,.-,n_.,

--,__m.y-

,.w,

,_,__y.,wyeg.,,-~..,_

....y

,_m-- _,.,,. _

,....e.,7 y

19 1

put in the heavier or larger crankshaft as was done at 2

Shoreham, j

3 MM. NOVAK:

It is a good point, Mr. Asselstine.

4 It does have the later design crankshaft.

In other l

5 words, the earlier shaft was 12 inch.

The replacement was 6

13.

The River Bend crankshaft is 13.

We are talking about i

7 small differences in material characteristics.

and we have discussed this a number 8

And we also 9

of times with the Commission -- when we looked at the TDI 10 diesel and the ability to conclude that the design and the 11 operation would meet general design criteria in 17 we did 12 identity two possible courses of action.

One is you could 13 just run your machine and establish that it would meet all of 14 the design requirements.

A n c' one of them, of course, would be 15 fatigue life.

And we talk about two of the seven cycles.

16 This was done specifically by Duke Power in the 17 Catawba application.

This resulted in some 24 times 30 1

18 guess that is 750 hours0.00868 days <br />0.208 hours <br />0.00124 weeks <br />2.85375e-4 months <br /> of continuous operation.

You 19 disassemble the machine and you are satisfied that certainly i

20 the design has been satistled.

Then you look at the parts and 21 the need for any replacement.

22 That was kind of done also on Shoreham.

23 Now the question is, do you need to do that on 24 every successive machine of the same design?

25 The Stati concluded no, but you must be able to

20 I

benchmark your design and your construction to that lead 2

plant.

And that is exactly what Gulf States did when they 3

went to the Shoreham design, identified some small differences 4

in the material characteristics of the crankshatt, and then 5

set the rating to accommodate it.

6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

7 MR. NOVAK:

Now, that is the way we went through 8

this.

And the Statt is satisfied that this machine does meet 9

the general design criteria.

i j

10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

L 11 MR. DENTON:

L e '. me ask our chtet reviewer, who is 3

12 Carl Berlinger, it he would like to add anything.

13 Carl?

i 14 This was reviewed by the same team of people that 15 have reviewed all of these TDI diesels around the country.

f 16 MR. BERLINGER:

The Shoreham engines, originally 13 by 17 they had a problem with the crankshatt.

They had 11 I

l 18 11 crankshaft.

Then atter that had tailed, then there was a i

19 replacement of crankshalt and all associated parts.

4 20 The River Bend crankshaft was a larger shaft to 21 start with.

So in addition River Bend did go through 22 considerable returbishment of the engine, replacement of parts 1

23 with those that were recommended by the owners group and by 24 the Statt.

25 The engine was not specifica11v tested out to 10 to

l 21 1

the 7th cycles, but rather relied on the testing that was done 2

at Shoreham.

3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

4 MR. BERLINGER:

And the minor ditterences in material I can*t remember the exact numbers, but I believe 5

properties 6

that Shoreham crankshatt had a tensile strength of about I

7 1 81 3, 0 0 0 psi, and I think River Bend had something lake 95, 97.

8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

9 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

You consider the TUI diesels 10 fully qualified?

f j

11 MR. BERLINGER:

Yes, I do.

i

[

12 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

Thank you.

13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

In a comparison point, in 14 terms of the tensile strength, is upgraded Shoreham diesel, 15 as compared with the current version of the River Bend diesel, 16 is that right?

i 17 MR. BERLINGER:

Yes, we compared identical designs.

18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Any other questions?

20 CNo response.1 f

21 MR. STERN:

May I have slide number 5?

22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

You are going to cover these 23 other items as we go along?

?

24 MR. STERN:

Yes, sir.

25 The Licensee has 28 senior reactor operators, i

-.,--n n

,n-

---n,.---,.-,,-+.,n.-

--e.,-,

_v,,-~-,n-.--,n,w.---,_-,----.~.c-,-.

-,ne--en

.e -

w.--

- m n.y--,---

~

--._~. _.

~

22 1

Licensed 9 with previous BWR operating experience.

The 2

Licensee has six-shift capability but is operating five shifts 3

on 12-hour rotation.

4 The composition of each shift is an SRO who is shift 5

supervisor; another SRO who is a control room toroman; and i

6 two MOs.

All shitts use the dual role STA/SRO.

i

?

River Bend's technical specittoations require that 4

8 when using a dual STA/SRO, a fifth licensed operator must be 1

1 9

on shift.

Currgntly in practice, but not by tech speo, that 10 titth operator is an SRO.

11 Now the Statt earlier informed you at the end of l

i 12 last month, that River Bend was licensed under the Draft 13 Policy Statement on engineering expertise on shift, which did I

14 not require a degree.

15 The Statt has discussed this issue with the Licensee, 16 and the Licensee is prepared to come into conformance and has i

17 committed to come into conformance with Commission guidance by 1

l 18 the tirot refueling outage.

19 We feel that would be the least disruptive course 1

20 of action.

I 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

In previous plants, when they i

22 had STAS, didn't they meet the college degree, or am 1 23 MR. DENTON:

No, following 3

24 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

STAS never 25 MM. DENTON:

Following the Commission guidance that m

m

=

23 1

was available at that time, there were a iow ut111tles who l

I 2

wanted to combine the STA and the SRO, and at that time the i

3 existing guidance was that they didn*t have degrees.

4 Now we think degrees are a great idea.

We tully l

5 support it.

[

6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Yes, I was always for the l

7 degree.

I 8

MR. STERN:

But this one, I think we had talked i

j 9

about two of them that we had to grandfather, and this one was 4

10 in the transition also.

So, at the time they proposed it, the 11 concept -- Now, some of their STAS and SMOs do have degrees.

l 12 I guess they could run two shifts at full power, and one at I

facetiously.

13 low power 14 But, rathat than do that, we think that they should

]

15 be allowed some time to come into full compliance, since the 16 polloy was formulated while they were in transition from the 17 low-power license to full-power license, j

18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

I guess I have no problem with i

n l

19 giving them time to come into transition 11 you feel that for 20 the interim they are in good shape.

4 21 I always thought the STA had to have a degree, even 22 before we talked about combining them.

23 MR. DENTON:

Well, let me ask Hugh to --

24 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

Am I wrong?

a 25 MR. THOMPSON:

Hugh Thompson, NHC Statt, formerly I

i

E 24 f

1 Division Human Factors Safety.

[

2 We, as a matter of practice, had most of the STAS l

l 3

with degrees.

There was a guidance that was prepared by INPO I

i 4

that listed some technical training which was also acceptable 5

to the Statt for a number of utilities in qualifying l

6 individuals for the STA position.

l 7

We strongly encouraged the industry and the utilities i

8 to have degreed STAS.

There was no hard requirement.

I would 9

say the majority of STAS are degreed, but it is not 100 10

percent, 11 (Commissioner Roberts returned to the meeting.3 12 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

Mut you are not agreeing any 13 more with any other utilities to have an STA that doesn't have 14 a degree, is that right?

15 MR. THOMPSON:

I believe we are still using the same 16 review criteria which

! guess the Commission Policy 17 Statement has established that the STA will be a degreed 18 individual.

19 COMMfSSIONER ZECH:

That's what I mean.

So from now 20 on -- I know there was a period of apparent uncertainty that 21 you, as I understand it, did grant authority to consider an 22 STA qualified without a degree.

And apparently Niver Wend is 23 one of those organisations.

24 Nut what I am saying is, I understand that.

But 25 from now on, I hope the guidance that we have given is clear i

L-.

25 1

enough, that we expect to have at least one individual in the 2

control roor with a degree.

3 Is that right?

l 4

MR DENTON:

Well, let me answer that.

It was my i

5 understanding the last time we discussed this generlo topio,

[

L 6

that when they were c omb i r.e d, they did have to have a degree.

7 But, I guess 1 didn't take as an attirmative position, that 8

all STAS in the future have to have degrees.

9 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

It has b e e n,any impression that 10 that was a requirement before.

And I am just dumbicunded.

11 thought STAS t

12 MM. DENTON:

I thought we had ended up 13 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

Technical advisor sounds to me i

14 like 13 MM. DENTON:

Well, that was the intent, I think at to the time after the INFO involvement and acceptance by the I

t i

17 Commission to that approach.

It is not an iron-clad l

l 18 degree. They do permit other people t o oosse close r

19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Maybe it was "or equivalent."

P 20 I think you are right.

I do remember that "or equivalent."

21 Might now the combined STA/SMO is a degreed the j

t 22 requirement is for a degreed person, i

23 MM. DENTOt/

Yes.

And we intend to implement that.

24 And this plant turned out to have been -- I think is the only 23 other one you will see where that la not true.

1

____..____-m 26

+

+

1 Now, on the STAS, we oculd certainly take that view j

l 3

also that we should just drop the "or equivalent" tor the

}

I 1

f 3

tuture.

I don *t know what impact that would have on the next 4

plant.

t 5

Many of these programs got set in place years ago, 1

]

6 and are a little slow in oatching up to tofay's requirement.

l l

l

?

COMMISSIONER ZECH:

As far as I am concerned, l

i e

there has been a period of uncertainty which you are describing I

]

j 9

now.

I think we should finish that uncertainty.

At least that i

10 is our responsibility to make clear to everybody what we want, i

11 I think we are trying to do that.

I hope that we are doing i

J 12 that.

1 13 MR. DENTON:

I think it is clear for the combined j

i i

l 14 STA/SNO, and all it takes is your i

IS COMMISSIONEW ZECH:

I expect to see in the control l

l i

i i

16 room of every plant, at least one person with a degree.

And I l

t i

j 17 think it that is not clear, it should be clear.

And that is i

i le our responsibility to make it clear from now on.

i 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Wut for the interim they have l

20 made a commitment to comply by the first refueling outage, is

[

t i

l 21 that oorrect?

22 MW, STENN:

Yes, sir =

23 CHA!NMAN PALLADINO:

And you find this an acceptable j

i 24 approsoht i

2S MW. DENTON:

Yes.

And Web can talk about this f

t' J

27 1

since the performance of the shitts does not cause us concern.

2 It they didn't have good performance, we might want to push 3

this issue a little harder -- but in this particular case 4

Mob, you might want to comment 3

MR. MANTIN:

As I will be mentioning shortly, we 6

consider them to be a strong operating organisation with good 7

performance.

So we have no reservations with resolving this 8

issue torma11y by the first refueling 9

COMMISSIONEN ZECH:

I agree, I have no reservations 10 in this partloular organisation.

But, I do think it is our 11 responsibility to make sure that our regulations are clear, 12 and ! think we should do thtt.

13 MM. STENN:

Let us make a survey to see it the next 14 tow applicants that might be coming along have STAS who don't 15 have degrees, and get that down to you with some proposal on 16 how to handle it.

17 COMMISSIONEN ZECH:

I think that would be good.

18 MN. DENTON:

I'm not sure that Ferry, for example, 19 or Palo Verde 2,

Millstone 3 -- they may be operating under 20 last week's guidance.

Or last year's guidance.

21 COMMISSIONEM ZECH:

That's a good idea.

Let's 22 clarity it.

And I think we should -- we, here in the 23 Commission, haven't given the guidance.

We should certainly 24 do so.

At least that is how I feel about it.

25 COMMISSIONEN ASSELSTINE:

la it clear that this is a l

26 1

requirement?

2 COMMISSIONEN HOBERTS:

I was just going to say, I 3

may be in the minority.

I respectfully disagree with that 4

requirement l

5 COMMISSIONEN HERNTHAL:

Well, it is not a 6

requirement.

I should point out to my colleagues this is a l

7 policy rtatement, and it is not a requirement.

It is not an I

8 enforceable requirement 9

That is not to say I don't support the policy 10 statement, which ! do, but we need to make a distinction here.

l l

11 In this particular case I would point out, too, that i

or the acceptance, I guess, by our 12 the arrangement was made 13 Statt was made in May of 1984, as I recall, for that broad 14 statting by the utility, 15 So, in my judgment it is a matter of good tatth, to 16 proceed here with some element of grandfathering.

I strongly 17 support the concept though, that we have set torth in our new 1

te policy statement that Commissioner Zech has been speaking to i

19 here.

It is a policy statement, however, and we ought not to 20 call it a requirement 6, Uecause, it we want to make it a l

21 requirement, we better make it a rule, 22 In this parttoular case of this utility, I guess !

23 have some degree of confidence that the CLO of Oult State J4 Utilities with his background is fully appreciative of the 25 value of degrees, and I would hope that there would be no

29 1

problem in seeing them escalate their own degree requirements 2

on their statt.

3 MM. DENTON:

We have not proposed to put this in the i

4 tech spoos as a requirement. Since it is not an ottiotal i

5 requirement, you might ikke to indicate talk to Dr. Murrill, I

6 Chairman of the company, about his commitment to that.

3 1

i

?

CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

It is a commitment that is 1

t j

documentedt t

9 MM. DENTON:

Yes.

}

t I

10 COMMIS$10NEN ASSELSTINE:

I would point out that

}

l 11 while, Lando, I think your characterization is largely 1

i

~

12 accurate,,there is one exception to an absolute desire for a 13 degree.

That is, it you do have a professional engineer's 1

6 1

14 license.

So, there was one alternative to actually having the j

15 degree.

I don't 16 At some point it would be usetut to me 17 know whether you all are prepared to do it, or the company to l

1 18 do it later -- to deserthe the training and education j

19 background and experience of the three STAS, people that are 20 carrying out the STA function, who do not have degrees. It i

i 21 would be usetut to know what their training and experience and t

22 educational level is of those three individuals.

I l

t 23 CHA1NMAN PALLADINO:

Do you want that today) i 24 COMMISSIONEM ASSELSTINE:

Ves.

Just a briet summary I

4 25 of that.

I l

1 I

30

}

t 1

1 1

MM. DENTON:

Forhaps the company --

(

I 2

COMMISSIONEN ASSELSTINE:

Perhaps the company is in I

i 3

a better position to do that.

4 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

We have suggested the Oult 5

State Utility *s representative do that.

1 I

6 MR. STENN:

There are tour of the six shifts two I

i l

I d

7 of the STAS do have degrees, tour do not.

L i

l COMMISSIONEN ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

Although you said 1

9 they are working live shifts now?

l 10 MR, STEMN:

Correct.

I 11 COMMISSIONEM ASSELSTINE:

Are they going to go to i

12 the six-shitt rotation?

i I

13 MM. STENN:

No, they are going to stay at live.

i f

14 COMMISSIONEN ASSELSTINE:

It would mean that three

(

I 1

]

13 people would be working the other shift I

l 16 MK. STEEN:

Yes.

l I

t j

17 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

I understand earlier this year f

I i

18 the bloonsee had indicated a desire to have a tour-shitt watch t

19 in the control room.

3 i

20 MK. STENN:

They have subsequently Itoonsed i

t 21 considerably more operators than they had at that time.

l l

23 CHAINMAN PALLADINO:

Did the Statt innd it soceptable l

a i

23 to have a tour. shift watch?

Or, didn't you address l'

atter l

4 I

i 24 they changed itV l

1 l

l 25 MN, STENN:

1 don't recall, Mr. Chairman.

l l

i r

31 1

I think it was overcome by events, it was never a 2

requirement, 3

CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

So they are going to continue 4

with five shiftst 3

MM, STERN:

They are going to continue with five.

t CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

Thank you, 7

MM. STERN:

I would like to go back to allde number e

tour.

And, of course, the last comment was, we do have a 9

plant simulator that has been in operation.

10 COMMISSIONEM AWSELSTINE:

One question on that slide 11 before you go back 12 Culidel 13 You say operating statt meets hot operating 14 experience requirements, 15 I nott ad on the low-power license, there was a to lloonse condition that talked about operating expertence.

Did 17 they ever use shttt advisors during low powert le MN, STERN:

No.

It turns out that they qualitled 19 their shift advisors -- they quantiled a sutilatent number of 20 operators, I believe, within a day or two for the low-power 21 licensing, Go, we never required for shttt advisors.

It we 23 did, it was only for a day or two.

My September let, that was 21 removed, and that is being r e sto v e d.

24

Okay, May we have number tourt 25 (dildel

32 1

Mr. Chairman, I suggest I jump to emergency planning 2

and then come back and pick up technical spectiloations along 3

with SEN 5,

before we turn over to Negion IV.

4 All on-site and cit-stte issues assootsted with 5

Miver Wend's emergency plan have been resolved and approved.

6 Niver Wend's plans are consistent with our desiston, and on 7

October 8th FEMA did provide its lindings to the Stati that everything was saceptable.

On that basis, the Stati concludes 9

the license condition on emergency planning is not necessary, 10 The licensing that was sent to you atethe end of 11 Qotober did contain a license condition.

That will be removed 12 when --

13 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

What was that, that we had to 14 have an acceptable FEMA tinding?

15 MN. STkMN:

Yes, sir.

to COMMISWlONEN AWSELSTINE:

When was the last 17 tull-scale exerciset 18 CHA!NMAN PALLADINO:

January --

19 COMMISSIONEN AWSELGTINE:

January of this year, 20 MN. STENN:

Yes, 21
Okay, Let me move to silde S (IP.

That is a backup 22

slide, 23 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

Do you have a copy for me now 24 so I can see 6tt 25 tuaoument handed to Chairman Falladino.1

i 33 1

MN. STEMN; The supplement number 3 to the Wately l

2 Evaluation Meport which is currently in preparation will cover I

l j

3 the tollowing toptos.

i 4

Turbine maintenance program.

The Licensee has given l

i 6

l 5

us a commitment that it w!!! have the turbine maintenance

{

i l

4 program put into the -- aooording to the recommendations that i

we had,iased on the license. nditions, we teei ineir i

f j

G commitment to implement is sutttonent to remove the license j

l j

9 condition, 4

f j

10 We feel that the commitment is suttionent on i

11 environmental quantiteations, and reinstatement et the j

12 environmental program is complete.

l 13 On equipment quantikostion, we did have one exemption 1

1

]

14 in the low-power lleense.

It was for two air-operated valves.

I l

]

15 They have now been quanttied, j

l l

16 There was also an open item on a anni-audit that we

{

f j

17 had requested.

That has now been sattstaetortly closed, j

l l

14 We have already discussed hydrogen control.

i i

i 19 On deotton d of the WEN, we will discuss the loads l'

I.

20 being placed on the TDI diesen.

The bloonsee has singhtly l

I i

ai changed she se,u.noe ei inada ao the diesei, and ihai is 22 surrently undergoing Stati review.

We expect that review to l

I

)

23 he completed by the weekend.

{

l 24 Asiatto Clam Control.

The bleensee has submitted l

I 25 their program, we have approved it, and as required by the i

1

34 I

]-

i i

technical spectiteations before water was introduced into the l

3 servLee water system, the Asistko Clam Control program had to i

I i

3 he approved, n

j 4

COMM!Wol0t;EN AWWELWTINE:

How are they going to 7

f 5

control itt l

6 MW. STENN:

Chlorination, l

7 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

What do you mean, to kill the 1

i l

olams?

I I

l 9

COMMIWW10NEW ASWELWTINE; Te kill the clams?

4 l

10 MM, WTENN!

To kill the clams.

l 4

11 (Laughter 1

(

i l

j 12 COMM!WWIONEN WENNTHAbt Let's get down to brass

+

]

13 tasks.

J 14 Chaughter) 15 MN. DENTON:

They mention on this, this became a I

i it salety problem several years ago for plants in the doutheast l

l iv

.co.use ine oi.ms we,e growing insiWe e,isiosi heat e, changers i

}

14 tor piping, and has required attention at a number et plants.

I f

19 COMMlWWIONEN AWWELWilNE:

These are not an endangered I

l

}

Jo species, I take it, t

i 21 MN. STENN:

I gather they are not a nettve spoolsi.

I l

\\

r t

statting,

[

l 22 in Chapter 13 we will be ouvering shift i

f 2 'J the Emergency Plan, whleh is the removal of the license j

i 24 eendition, containment venting, which la also removal et I

25 n.ense condition wnish was impos.d on containmoni venting.

l 1

l

)

1 35 i

f

}

1 We are going back to the ACHW at another time with i

i I

2 Mtver Wend and probably other MANK !!!s on this tasue.

l I

3 Chapter it we will discuss in total, the changes in f

)

4 the techntoal speettioations, I

s Under Chapter 18, the WFDS, there was a condition

{

t that an SPDS had to be in pleoe by March tot et 1944, and it 7

had to meet several requirements, including it had to meet.

[

i l

identi.ai to the Cen.rai ui.eirio design, et

..ie,a.

I

?

(

v The statt eenducted an audit of the sFDs in the end i

10 et September of this, and it was satistectory, We do have a 11 commitment trem the bloonsee that the BFDS will be in place by I

i 13 March lat.

We teel that is suttletent.

We, the FWAN l

13 commitment will replace the lleense conditten.

14 And the last shapter we will discuss the ACMS 15 inndings, prinstpally hydrogen sentrol and containment venting, a

l le COMMISSIONEW AWWELWTINK!

Wherever you had speettle f

3 i

!?

lleense conditions, like in the low-power lleense or where you 14 propose lisense senditions in these areas and the L6eensees l

19 eene in now with a sommitment, that commitment to rettested, I l

30 take it, in the FWAMat j

31 MM. STENN1

Vos, 23 COMMIWW10NWN ANGELWTINEi When it is issued?

l l

3 'J MN. BTENN!

Vos, t

r 24 COMMIMW10NNN AWWELWTINg!

Therefore you are deleting

[

]

I l

25 the lleense senditions whleh would have required those thinget

(

I I

i i

t

30 1

MN. WTENN:

Correct.

i a

COMMiddlONEW ASWELWTINE:

Any ditticulty in I

3 enforceability should those commitments not be met by that l

4 approach as opposed to leaving the lleense condition in, whtoh S

I take it is comparable to the PWAN commitment?

6 MM. STENN:

I think Lt is bastoanly a judgment call, 7

how serious this is in terms et== how serious do we regard t

u it.

It it was something that we telt was vital, absolutely 9

vital, we would keep nt as a Itoonse condition.

It it is a l

I 10 little less vital, then I think we can rely on a commitment.

f in COMMlWWlONKM AWWELWTINEt What are the dtiteronoes 13 in terms et the implications for enteroeability' 43 MM. CHWlhTENNUNNY:

There wouldn't to any difference i

14 in terms et entorceability, i

15 Nut, it it la in the FWAN, that just requires an it additional step.

You have to tsaue an order.

Then, it they 17 did not comply with the order, then we take enteroement

[

le

sottons, li it is already a lloonse condillon, you out out i

i, that one sie,.

i 20 Nut, in terms of whether the agency can ensure the l

[

31 sotton is complied with, whether it is a lleense sondition or j

t 33 a commitment in the FWAN, the agency entoreement powers een be f

23 aseamplished in both instances, J4 COMMidWIONEN AWWELdTINEi Fartteularly in those i

3$

instances where they have got the lleense already, why wouldn't 1

[

\\

37 i

t you just leave it in, espeolally it the commitment is yes, we i

2 are going to comply with what you ordered us to do in the 3

Itoonset 4

MM. DENTON:

I have had the feeling we have cluttered l

5 up the lloonse with what I'd call marginal safety-eigntitoant l

6 issues, and have generally preterred to keep in there only

(

7 those of major safety signtitoanoe so that the inspector's and l

8 the Licensee's attention is tooused on safety limits and 9

tmportant LCOs, and not necessarily chlorination of clams in 10 the heat exchanger, you know, at one time we used to treat 11 So, it is 12 the whole appiteation as a lleense, and that led to ditiuston 13 of, I think, attention, ti o, it is just, our normal approach 14 to to not have lleense conditions unless they have some high 15 threshold or safety input, 10 1 don't think we have had dittlounty in entorotng 17 these kinds of things as a praattoo, 11 there were a real l

16 problem, I guess we could reconsider it.

1 l

IV MM. MANTIN:

It has not, trom an entorocability l

40 standpoint, it really has not been a praattoal problem.

(

W1 COMMIWWlONEN AWWELdTINEi

Okay, 32 CHAlHMAN P/LLAblNOi Are you going to cover changes

'J 1 in technteel spoest 34 MW, WTEHN:

Ven, str.

l Ji May I have slide SM, That is another beskup slide,

r i

38 l

1 CDocument handed to Chairman Falladino.1 2

CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

Thank you.

?

3 iniidei i

4 MN. STEMN:

I would Itke to call on Martin Vergillio, j

f 5

who is heading our tech speo ottort, 6

MM. VENGILLIO:

Martin Vergillio, NMC Statt. Division 7

of Licensing.

i e

COMMISSIONEN AWWELSTINE:

As you go through these l

9 Items, could you also give us a little background on how the l

to toch spoo situation evolved for this plant, j

i

[

11 Why are these changes necessary?

Why weren't these 12 things caught the first time around, parttoularly in light of

(

13 the Grand Quit experience.

l 14 MN. VENutLLIO:

Sure.

[

15 Nether than go through each item, I would like to to put them in three categories, and talk about them, il you f

I i

17 would 1the to, i

le The first category is correottons, And I will point i

19 to setpointa..

I I

20 When we lloonsed the plant in Chapter 7 of the FWAN I

21 in the SEN, we recognised that the setpoint review was not

==

l 23 yet completed.

That there were certain adjustments still l

23 heing made.

And, as a result of adjustments with regard to i

24 environmental quellfloation, the Applicant proposed for the

'J 5 tull-power lleense, a change in setpoints.

p 9

39 l

1 CHA!HMAN PALLADINO:

A change to what?

2 MM. VEHOILLIO:

A change to the setpoints.

This was 3

two setpoints were changed essentially as a result of the 4

environmental qualitication program's input on the errors S

associated with the instrumentation.

6 That is one category.

7 Another category we have is enhancements to 6

operation.

Let*s look at air looks.

The Appiteant proposed a 9

change so that should one air look become inoperable, he would to have additional tiewibility to go in and make repairs, 11 1 think they have had a little problem with the air 12 looks, the air look seals. And, so through operations they 13 have realised that additional tioxibility would be to their l

14 advantage.

They proposed a change, the statt is reviewing it i

13 now.

1 16 The other category of changes, are changes made at 17 the request of tne NHC Statt.

Iodine spikes was the subject 18 of a generlo letter we sent out, 83-19.

And this is the type 19 of change they are proposing to conform to the generlo letter.

20 It is a relaxation in requirements for reporting.

21 COMM19810NEN UEHNTHAL:

I don't know whether this is 22 the appropriate place to ask, but I am ourtous, in light at J3 our discussion yesterday on station blackout, how would this 24 plant stack up 11 you took that ortterton for station blackout i

25 and applied it to this plant?

Any ides?

40 1

MR. NEMNEMO:

.T don't want to sound parochis1, but 2

when we speak of s t a t ion bl ackouth 'I think most of us are 3

thinking et a FWM where there is a condensate tank, a at least one and some 4

turbine-driven auxiliary feed pump S

batteries to control key valves and instruments.

6 And I believe your question is probably directed 7

toward how long oan you run on that one turbine-driven 8

auxiliary until you get some power back.

And typtoally that 9

plant, a FWR, would have two euergency diesel generators, 10 So, if you are looking at the broad perspective of 11 loss at power incidence, you have postulated the loss of 12 olisite power and the loss of two onsite diesel generators.

13 In this particular plant, being a NWM6, you have got 14 almost a million gallons et water right in the plant itself.

15 Nut, you also have onsite three trains of emergency diesel, it that can supply cooling water, all being able to draw on that,

17 million-gallon supply or outside supplies.

And in tact.-in

' hat was made 18 the review of this plant that was one retinement t

19 to make the high-pressure core spray diesel truly independent 20 of the other diesels, so that you have in etteet three safety 21 trains instead of two.

22 They then also have an RICI system whloh is the 23 analog of a turbine-driven auxiliary, I don't know what their 24 battery capacity is, but on balance I would say that this 25 plant would probably look very good in an appraisal against

l 41 1

our criteria for station blackout.

I don *t know how many 2

hours it could survive 3

COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

That was really the key 4

question, I guess.

But you are guessing it would be 1

S substantially in excess, then, of the 6

MR. BERNERO:

I would be astounded it it was at the 7

low end of the few hours scale.

I just would be astounded.

8 MR. DENTON:

In simulators I know it sustains longer 9

than I am willing to play out the scenario.

10 But that might be a good question to ask Mr. Cahill.

11 He might know the answer.

12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Are you going to say l

l 13 more about tech spoos?

I have got a couple of questions.

14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

I thought you only went through 15 the first item.

Was !

16 MR. VERGILLIO:

I tried to put them in categories 17 tor you, sir.

18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

I only heard one, setpoints.

19 COMMIS810NER AWSELSTINE:

He has talked about todine 20 spikes as being ones that had been --

21 MR. VERGILLIO:

We sont out a generlo letter, and i

22 that was a response to our generio letter.

l 23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

And air looks, operational 24 11exib111ty.

25 MN. VERGILLIO:

Correct.

m

42 1

CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Okay, ask your question.

2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

One of my questions is, 3

how many tech spec changes have they proposed in terms of 4

these categories?

How many?

Numbers of changes, how many?

5 MR. VERGILLIO:

I think the only one that is a 6

duplicate there is setpoints.

Wes have two setpoint changes, 7

and the rest are one for one per line item.

8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

9 MR. STERN:

And two on fire protection.

10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

How many of these you 11 mention iodine spikes as one example.

Is that the only one on 12 the list that is a response to, like a generic letter or 13 something that we have said 14 MR. VERGILLIO:

Leakage detection on the 15 high-pressure / low-pressure interface valves, The Statt 16 recently went forward to CRGH and discussed a new, less leakage criteria.

We went from 17 stringent leakage detection 18 one gpm to a value dependent on the size of the line.

19 And as a result of that review we have decreased our 20 requirements.

And that was known to the Applicant and they 21 proposed a change in that area.

22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

So the bottom four 23 basically are ours?

24 MR. VERGILLIO:

It's a mix.

25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

The first one you say they i

43 1

couldn't do that until they got the EQ work done.

2 MR. VERGILLIO:

It was a result of the EQ program 3

impact.

4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

All right.

Air locks, 5

give them operational flexibility.

rod 6

How about the other, what is it, four or five

?

block instrumentation, fire detection.

8 MR. VERGILLIO:

Rod block instrumentation was an 9

administrative error that was made at the time of licensing.

10 There was a line item in one of the tables that they had 11 originally scratched out in their proposal to us, and it fell 12 through the crack.

13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

And fire detection?

14 MR. VERGILLIO:

Fire detection instrumentation, they 15 installed additional detectors at the request of the staff 16 through one of our audits, and this was adding those detectors I?

in a particular location.

18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

How about the other i

19 three or tour?

20 MR. VERGILLIO:

Overcurrent protection devices, it 21 was a clarification with regard to the wording of the 22 specification.

23 Refueling platform interlocks, again operational

)

24 enhancement when you had irradiated fuel The requirements i

25 are really there for that protection, and if they are handling j

44 l

i 1

fuel that has not been irradiated, the requirements really l

2 aren*t applicable.

1 3

COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

So, I get the 4

impression from what you have said that this doesn*t reflect a 5

failure on the part of their tech spec preparation or review 1

4 6

program.

That what you have is a collection -- apart from

?

that one item, the rod block instrumentation, what you have i s 8

a collection of items that arose as a result of the generic I

9 l e t,t e r s.

They are requirements that we have been imposing as 10 well as 11 MR. VERGILLIO:

And their use of the tech specs, 12 looking at how can they enhance operation.

How can they gain 13 additional flexibility.

Some of this only comes out through i

14 use of the tech specs on the part of a licensee who has not 15 had a plant before, 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

So this should not 17 indicate, the number here of items, an unusual situation when i

18 compared with other NTOLs say over the past six or eight 19 months or so?

20 MR. VERGILLIO:

No, we processed about the same i

21 number of changes on Fermi, for example.

4 22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

May I ask a couple of questions 24 on the tech specs.

25 Do these reflect the as-built conditions of the I

l

~

i i

,n. - -,

-,--n--,no-,-

w o-

,------s,-e-ev~

~

~wmv-

,s

,n-~,

e----s

~,,vw.v,---,

m--r--wd

45 4

1 plant?

2 MR. VERGILLIO:

We have had the Applicant certify to 3

that effect, and we have had a Region team go out in accordance 4

with one of their inspection modules, crawl over the plant 5

sampling it and making sure that it did, in fact, match the 6

design.

7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

And you confirmed that --

8 MR. VERGILLIO:

Yes, they do confirm that.

9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Is the Staff then satisfied 10 with regard to the tech spec situation?

11 MR. VERGILLIO:

Yes, we are.

I 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Did you also do a 13 comparison with the FSARs?

14 MR. VERGILLIO:

Yes, we did, as well as the 15 Applicant.

That is part of their certification.

They 16 certified that the tech specs match the as-built design, the 17 FSAR and the Stait*s SER.

18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Is Supplement 5 going to be i

20 issued before full power?

21 MR. NOVAK:

At the time of full power, yes, sir.

22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

You feel everything i s satisfied 23 such that we need not have a concern?

24

,M R. NOVAK:

That would be my recommendation to you, 25 Mr. Chairman.

I' 9

w_.

40 1

CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

At least so far as Supplement 2

5 is concerned?

3 MR. NOVAK:

Yes.

4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

So, for all of the items 5

on Supplement 5 that you are going to address, there are no 6

open technical issues as far as the Statt is concerned?

7 Everything is resolved, it is just a matter of writing up the 8

paragraphs for Supplement 5.

9 MR. STERN:

Correct.

10 There will be an indication, for example, hydrogen 11 control, I will track it by saying it is closed until the 12 first refueling outage.

13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Sure.

14 MR. STERN:

At this point I would like to turn the 15 presentation over to the Regional Administrator of Region 4.

16 May we have slide number 6.

17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

May I ask one last question 18 on this slide on the hydrogen control issue.

19 What is the difference between what is being done, 20 or been done here, and has been proposed for GESSAR hydrogen 21 control?

Does anybody know?

22 MR. BERNERO:

The GESSAR hydrogen control has one 23 unique difference that does not appear in this plant, and that 24 is battery powers, or independent power for the hydrogen 25 ignitors.

These hydrogen igniters of course, one way or

\\

47 l

1 another, there are about 100 of them, they are 100 watts i

i 2

apiece, and they come off the AC power system.

3 And the independence of power, that is the ability 4

to have hydrogen ignition during a station blackout sequence 1

5 is the only difference of significance between the GESSAR 6

treatment and this plant.

7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

You mean there is no ignition 8

capability under the circumstance of station blackout?

9 MR. BERNERO:

Yes.

pow, one of the things we 10 required in GESSAR as a condition was that it would have an 11 independent power supply for the igniters, 12 Now, I might add that say a year ago most people 13 thought that would mean all 100 igniters, 100 watts apiece, 14 and that is a pretty appreciable source of power.

As we go well, you know, when you are 15 through the HCOG test program 16 short of power you are sucking it out of batteries.

You know 17 that.

18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Yes.

19 MR. BERNERO:

And it is competing with the DC power 20 for instrumentation and everything else.

21 But the HCOG owners group program is coming up with 22 data that may support that even as few as one or two ignitors 23 on the batteries, which would then be a trivial load, may be 24 suiticient for adequate ignition.

25 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

That was exactly what I was

48 1

going to ask, why not just put a few of them on to the 2

emergency system.

3 MR. BERNERO:

That may be the case.

That may be an 4

appropriate thing to call for in the severe accident closure 5

in the final wrapup of hydrogen.

6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

What happens 11 you have a 7

station blackout, you have a hydrogen buildup, and then you 8

get AC power restored.

9 MR. BERNERO:

Then you would have a much more

]

10 violent combustion.

And in fact, their hydrogen procedure, 1

1 11 which they have submitted, deals with that about not doing 12 that.

Don't turn on the ignitors.

13 That is why I say we have to marry this with severe j

14 accident closure because a logical treatment of the plant t

r 15 might best approach it from the standpoint of have just a i

16 couple of them riding on the DC buses.

And then you would get f

17 your diffusion ~ ilame, which is a much better way to burn the l

18 hydrogen.

4 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

But, you must have had a severe-1 20 accident to get 21 MR. BERNERO:

Oh, yes.

This whole consideration j

22 starts when you have long since ruptured cladding and really 23 started to hurt the core badly.

24 MR. DENTON:

Yesterday we were not proposing to 25 combine design basis events and station blackout.

l

_. _ _.. _....... _ _ _ _ ~. _ _.. _.. _. _ _. _., _. - _. _.. -, _.. _. _ _ _ _.. _ _.

i 49 1

If that is the desire of the Commission, that 2

imposes a much greater coping ability than just for a plant in 3

normal operat:nn that has a station blackout.

4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Presumably the plant shuts I mean that is a 5

down in the circumstance of blackout or 6

correct assumption, right?

?

MR. DENTON:

Yes.

8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

And the emergency diesels 9

come on.

And you are saying these are connected to the 10 emergency system?

11 MR. BERNERO:

You have the ability when you have AC 12 power in bulk, yes, you can run igniters.

13 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

But not the backup battery 14 system.

15 MR. BERNERO:

But, when you have a true blackout, 16 you don *t have the ability presently to put those or any on the batteries.

17 number of them 1

18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

For loss of olisite power 19 it is not a problem.

It is if you have a true station 20 blackout.

Or a concern, anyhow.

21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Do you want to proceed?

22 MR. MARTIN:

Then into my aspect of the presentation, 23 which is slide 6.

24 CSlide]

25 In terms of -- before I start, because I think a

50 i

1 number of the statements I am going to be making will sound our experience with this Licensee has been very 2

redundant i

3 good from the field implementation standpoint.

Therefore, I i

4 think a number of the comments I am going to make are reflected 5

and supportive of the comments Mr.Denton made earlier relative j

6 to, it has been a good Licensee to work with in this regard.

l 7

'The construction inspection program has gone well.

i 8

We have completed the construction inspection program.

We there was a CAT inspection on this plant.

Thgre i

9 utilized

)

10 was an IDI inspection.

We utilized the nondestructive support inspection support out of Region I,

the NDE vehicle.

11 I.

12 All of those were generally positive.

A certain r

4 13 normal amount of findings and improvements, but no significant 4

14 deficiencies from any of those activities.

I 15 Throughout the history of the construction period on I

16 this plant, we only had one item of enforcement that would j

17 have been considered for escalated enforcement.

And, in fact, i

l 18 any consideration of a civil penalty was fully mitigated 19 because of the extent and the promptness of the corrective j

- 20 action that the Licensee took as soon as we identified the 21 problem.

)

22 So, there has been'no -- at least my memory is 23, telling me that there has been no escalated enforcement on 4

24 this plant throughout its construction history.

I 25 The amount of expenditure of resources was comparable I

r 4

.,. =,

e-s.

--e m,--,,n.-w-r

.-.e

.s

-,-r

51 1

to other recent NTOLs.

2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

As a curiosity, to satisfy 3

my curiosity, can you tell me what the cost per kilowatt 4

installed turned out to be?

5 MR. MARTIN:

I would like, if you would,to deter 6

that to the company.

I forget.

I have heard the numbers, and 7

if I misquoted them, I would feel awkward about that.

8 MR. STERN:

It was high on the Forbes* list.

9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

That*s what I thought.

I am 10 curious *to hear how that squares with the construction.

11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

There may be a relationship 12 there.

13 MR. MARTIN:

The quality assurance, we have done a 14 review of both their quality assurance ottorts over the 15 construction period, our own efforts at looking at the quality

~

16 assurance program, and reviewing our experience with that 17 program over the construction period of the site.

C 18 And it is our general assessment that the quality of 19 construction has been good in the sense that the company has 20 had a very effective and quite a strong quality program 21 throughout the period of construction.

22 An indication, interest was expressed at one point I 23 believe during the recent meeting of the regional 24 administrators with you, when I made mention of their work i

25 control program.

Some questions were raised and some interest i

I I

m.

52 6

1 in their work control program -- which was a program that they 2

put into ettect to control additional construction activities 3

that were going on simultaneous with fuel loading and low-power 4

operation.

5 From our perspective, we found that a very effective 6

program to keep their operational shifts well informed of what

?

was going on, but also to control that activity so that there 8

would not be unnecessary interference with operational 9

matters.

10 In fact, you had expressed some interest in it, and 11 it is my understanding that a stati paper is in preparation at 12 the present time to bring you more details on that.

And, I not I,

personally, but my statt or 13 think either I or the 14 the company I am sure, 11 you wanted additional information at 15 this moment, could probably provide it.

But I would point out 16 that I believe there is a paper in preparation in response to 17 a request that you made on that subject.

18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

I was just noting on the 19 events report list here that they are dominated by inadvertent 20 actuations of RPS and ESF and then, of course, the usual 21 number of operator errors.

22 Does that mean that those were all operator errors, 23 too?

24 MR. MARTIN:

It we use the broadest term of operator 25 error, yes.

We have looked at the reportable occurrences that

$3 1

have occurred.

It is my understanding that numerically they 2

are not dramatica1'y dissimilar to other plants in this phase 3

at this time.

4 The issue that I would like to point out, at least 5

in our looking at what has been done, there is one unique 6

what we consider to be operationally a relatively unique 7

approach taken by this company with regard to regard to this 8

plant.

They have baselined all of their surveillances for 9

this plant, utilizing the surveillance test procedures.

10 Many plants baseline a large traction of the 11 operability requirements that have to be demonstrated from 12 their preoperational test program.

11 a system successfully 13 passes the preoperational test, and it meets all the 14 requirements of timeliness and appropriateness and testing, 15 they can declare a system operable based on the preoperational 16 test procedure results alone.

That is legitimate 11 it meets 17 all the other constraints.

18 This plant, to the extent practical there are 19 some exceptions to this such as integrated leak rate tests 20 there are a few exceptions.

But, in the main, they decided to 21 rebaseline the plant, not relying on the preoperational test 22 results where it was practical to do so.

Therefore, they 23 reran all of their surveillance test procedures.

24 One of the reasons that we have also confidence in 25 the fact that there is a good match between the physical

54 1

installation of the plant, the surveillance test procedures 2

and the tech speo requirements.

3 But, every time you run a surveillance test 4

procedure, you expose yourself to an increased risk of an 5

error occurring, which might give you a reportable ocourrence.

6 So, we consider it relatively signittoant that 7

having baselined the plant, they still only came up with a I

8 total number of reportable occurrences over this period of l

}

9 time, which is somewhat comparable to other plants in the i

l 10 same mode.

Although, they expose t'homselves to a greater risk 11 of reportable coeurrences.

i 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

I want to ask you a question 1

13 about that.

I probably am not reading these tables correctly, i

14 but I am.looking at the memo from Crutchfield to Novak, and it 15 gives the number of events, and I don't know what the period 16 is, but it shows 18, 17 Then on a previous page, it shows for an average ot 4

18 tour BWRs, 10 or 11.

And 18 versus 10 t

i 19 MR. NOVAK:

The 10 is per month, and roughly over 20 two months 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

What is that 18?

22 MR. NOVAK:

That would be total.

23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

I see.

It doesn't say the same 24 thing.

I mean, it doesn't tell what this period is.

l 1

25 MR. NOVAX:

Under River Bend it said 1.8 months, 1

55 1

CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

1.8 months.

2 MR. NOVAK:

In round numbers, that is what it turns 3

out to be.

4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Okay. Thank you.

That's what !

5 was afraid of, I was reading it wrong.

6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

But they are right on the 7

average in terms of number per months.

8 MR. NOVAK:

Yes.

And we have updated that 9

information and they still tall into the nominal utilities.

I 10 MR. MARTIN:

And I must admit that my comments were 11 also based on the fact that I know my statt has been looking 12 at.other events that have not otticially been reported to us 13 yet, but they are in the review chain to be reported.

14 But in any event, at least I and my stati, in 15 looking at it are very comfortable that there is no particular 16 fatal problem or unique dititoulty being evidenced by their 17 reportability or reportable events that have been verified.

18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Are the types of reportable 19 events also comparable to other plants, particularly actuations 20 of the reactor protection system and the emergency safeguard 21 teatures?

22 MR. MARTIN:

I see my stati nodding, so I am going 23 to relay a yes to that.

24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

25 MR. MARTIN:

It there are no further questions, !

$6 1

will move on to slide 7,

please.

2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

One other question before 3

you leave that.

When did the plant go critical?

4 MR. STERN:

The 31st of October.

5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

So that gives us 6

two weeks' worth of experience.

Are you going to talk about i

?

the low-power testing experience, because I think by the time l

8 we have gotten this information, October 26th, they had not 9

gone critical.

Obviously they had not gone critical at that 1

10 point.

To what extent have the results, since criticality, 11 also been comparable?

What have those results been?

correct me it I'm 12 MR. MARTIN:

I think the 13 wrong.

I will make a general statement and I will ask my 14 statt to supplement me it I'm wrong, or it you need turther l

r j

15 information, i

16 Our experience with the low-power testing just i

i 17 parallels our experience with the Licensee in general. They 18 have a strong operating statt and they are running their plant 19 well.

i 20 I believe throughout this low-power testing period, 21 they have not experienced any inadvertent SCRAMS at the plant, 22 which for a plant under low-power testing, is quite unusual, l

23 at least in our experience.

24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

You say no SCRAMS 25 MR. MARTIN:

No inadvertent SCRAMS during this i

57 1

period.

2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

From the time they went 3

over what period?

That is what I am interested in.

4 MR. MARTIN:

Two weeks.

It is about a two-week 5

period.

6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Since they went critical?

?

MR. MARTIN:

Since they went critical.

8 Now, we consider that, albeit a very short period of it is not a large data base, and it could change 9

time 10 Monday, obviously, or Tuesday.

But, at least for the first 11 tow weeks that is a relatively unusual condition.

12 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

But that is how it ought to be.

13 MR. MARTIN:

Oh, I don't disagree with that, sir.

14 But it is unusual, albeit so, our experience has been l

1 15 good.

The test results have been good, the vigor with which 16 they pursued the test program, their resolution of any 17 identified problems, which have been minimal, continues to be i

18 aggressive.

They continue to run a good show in that regard, i

19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

And I take it during the 20 last two weeks when they have operated at power, there have i

21 been no signittoant operating events?

22 MR. MARTIN:

No, sir.

23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

24 MR. MARTIN:

It we use the term "significant" the 25 same way..

58 1

COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Anything comparable to the 2

ones that had been described, or the one event that had been 3

described in the October 2bth memo, event 4

MR. MARTIN:

No.

5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

6 CS11 del 7

MR. MARTIN:

I think if you will, I probably have 8

covered both of those items.

l 9

If I may have slide 8.

10

[ Slide 3 11 With regard to the SALP, I am not going to go down 12 the entire litany.

13 I would like to point out the first two items, which 14 I think is really meant to control many of the things that I 15 have said thus far.

16 We consider them to be a SALP 1 category in the area 17 of management control, and over the two most recent SALP 18 evaluation periods, they have gone to a SALP 1 in corrective i

19 action areas.

And those are really very intimately tied 20 together and drive good performance in almost every other 21 area.

22 So, we consider them to be a solid performer in 23 almost every category under their responsibility.

I think our last SALP assessment 24 Now, we have not I

25 ended December 31. We attempt, in accordance with I&E guidance,

59 1

Inspection and Enforcement guidance on the implementation of 2

the SALP program, on an NTOL to do a SALP within six months of 3

the time the plant is going to receive its license.

4 That was our intent.

That was the reason why we did 5

it at the end of December.

That was when we were anticipating 6

a mid-summer license issuanoe.

The course of events delayed 7

that some.

8 We have had the statt go back, if you will, and do 9

an informal SALP.

That is briet me on t h e i~r general views, 10 When we speak of a consistent trend, we meant that is they 1

11 were performing at the close of the period in a consistent 12 fashion at that kind of a level.

13 My statt tells me that that is overly conservative i

14 in a number at areas.

That in fact, it is very possible it we 15 were to rerate them we would change many of those "consistents" 16 to an " improving" status.

Perhaps even moving more categories i

17 towards a 1.

18 Now that is not a commitment that we will give them 19 1s, but it seems to be moving in that direction, that they j

20 seem to be performing very well.

l 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

On design control they went 22 from 1 to 2.

What does that imply?

Or what does that cover?

23 MR. MARTIN:

I would like to ask Eric Johnson, my 24 acting division director for reactor projects it he would i

25 address that issue, i

r

60 1

MR. JOHNSON:

Erio Johnson, Region IV.

2 I think moving trom a 1 to a 2 over that period et 3

time, you have to recognize the Licensee is taking over a 4

larger and larger portion of the design control activities 5

himself.

Little data, all good in this period ending in 6

1983.

1984 we just found with a much larger data base, that 7

he is an average performer.

I think that was just reflected 8

by a 2.

9 A 1 is really standout performance.

We didn*t see 10 standout performance.

He had a much larger population to deal 11 with.

We just found that average. So, I don *t think there is 12 any particular message in going from a 1 to a 2 in that.

It is 13 partially the data base.

14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Was it a question of needing 15 more people, or 16 MR. JOHNSON:

No, sir.

No, there were no outstanding a

l 17 recommendations that needed excessive attention.

That kind at 18 a message would have been retlooted in a 3.

A 2 is good, 19 steady performance.

If you keep doing it at that level, we 20 will continue to do our job at the level we are doing it now.

21 Aad we expect you to continue doing the same adequate job.

22 A 1 is, you are doing such a good job that perhaps 23 the NRC can back att and use its resources in other areas, 24 because you are minding the store so well.

25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Okay. Thank you.

...e,

-. ~,

01 s.

1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

I had one other question, 2

Bob, on the SALP ratings.

3 I agree with your comments about management control 4

and involvement, and how that tends to be the key for many 5

other things.

And I would also, I think, agree with your 4

6 assessment that that is one of the hallmarks of this 7

organisation.

)

I 6

But I would be interested in the tactors that you i

9 look to in judging that element -- you and the Region have 10 looked to in judging that element of their performance.

How 1

11 did you go about evaluating and assessment management control?

i 12 One of the arguments we hear, I think, iron time to 13 time is it is a very dititoult thing to assess or to evaluate, i

14 even though it is a terribly important thing in terms of r

i 15 overall importance of the operation.

2 16 MR. MARTIN:

The primary elements that I and the 1

i 17 statt use, and I and the other, I believe, agency managers

)

18 when we do these SALP assessments, I think the primary elements I

i 19 that I look tor, and I believe they do in issues of this kind.

20 is the vigor and the comprehensiveness with which Licensees l

21 organisationally deal with the identittoation and resolution of i

i j

22 problems.

k l

23 Problems occur at all of these sites.

I mean, that l

24 is a fact of lite of construction and testing and operation.

25 The issue is the extent to which they put them to bed without i

62 1

us havinD to deal with them on extending the scope of their 2

looking, extending the comprehensiveness, the degree of vigor 3

with which they attack root cause determination.

4

!! you will, I cannot give a recipe as much as when S

a problem is identified, before I am able to marshall, 11 you l

6 will, our resources to start identifying the areas that we 4

j 7

want to make sure the Licensee looks at and deals with, the l

8 Licensee has already come back to us and gives me an outline 9

of what resources he is putting on what areas, how he is

(

10 looking at the generio implications, how he is already you know, he outruns me.

And any time a Licensee 11 factoring 12 regularly and repetitively outruns me in terms of problem I

f 13 identification and comprehensiveness of corrective action, !

14 must admit that I and my statt become impressed with their 15 management control and their corrective action capability.

4 1

16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Harold, do you have any i

i 17 thoughts on that?

)

I i

18 MR. DENTON:

One event that I think just lends 19 weight to that, the Board of Directors of this company several r

20 years ago requested a meeting with the Staff to discuss 21 safety.

And that is practically unprecedented to have a 22 Board on their own initiative take such a direct interest in 23 safety matters.

24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Thank you.

25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Can I make a comment.

One of I

.i l

63 1

1 our Commissioners has to leave by 11:45.

I don't want to out l

2 short necessary discussion, but it we could, perhaps, bring 3

the Statt presentation to a close, we could allow ten minutes 4

or so for the representatives of GSU to come torward and maybe 1

5 still see it the Commission --

6 MR. DENTON:

I think our presentation is essentially 7

complete.

i 8

MN. MARTIN:

It is essentially complete.

It I could i

9 just have slide 9,

this is one area which fortunately I can go j

l 10 through very quickly.

11 (Slide 3 i

12 This is a low allegation plant.

It has had very tow 13 allegations.

I think since April ot '82 we have had a total f

14 of 41 allegations.

There are only live allegations that still l

15 remain open.

The technical statt has looked at the technical J

j 16 content, the nature of it.

We haven't officially closed the 4

17 tiles, but there is nothing in there that gives us any concern 18 relative to going above 5 percent power.

19 This Licensee does have and I will call it a l

20 limited exist interview program for employees, or selected

)

21 classes of employees.

It is not as comprehensive as some J

22 programs in some tao 111ttes.

But, nonetheless, they do have a 1

23 program.

24 We have looked at every issued identified.

The t

25 technical Region IV statt has looked at every issue t

?

I l

04

[

i 1

identified.

And anything that is currently open, we have no i

2 concerns about it having any impact on tull-power operation.

[

3 So, their program is working, and it is good, j

4 l

i 4

That really concludes my part of the

{

5 COMMISSIONEW ASSELSTINE:

Can you otter any reasons l

i l

6 tor why the low, very low level of allegations?

l

?

MR. MARTIN:

I would really be in the area ot l

8 speculation.

l 9

COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Okay.

i 10 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

You might want to ask GSU it 1

L l

11 they have any idea.

l 12 COMMISSIONER NERNTHAL:

I have one question.

What

l a

)

13 is the sate shutdown earthquake seismic basis for the plant?

I i

14 Does anybody know?

.25?

i 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

That's what I would guess.

}

16 COMMISSIONEM BERNTHAL:

.1?

i i

17 MR. KNIGHT:

Jim Knight from the Statt.

.1 g.

1 18 COMMISSIONER NEMNTHAL:

ACES mentioned that issue in 19 their letter as I recall, and made some comment about it i

i 20 receiving further study as part of their generio work on the j

i 21 issue.

i 22 What does that mean?

Does anybody know?

l i

i 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

We covered that a little bit.

4 j

24 MM. KNIGHT:

I can address that.

As you may be i

i 25 aware, there is a seismic margins program underway in NES.

i 3

4

i

)

05 1

There are also some other ao'tivities underway looking at East 2

Coast seismioity.

A number of these activities have led some l

3 people in the tield to believe they had design level like i

4

.1 g,

and then this is something that is open to wide 5

diversions of opinion.

Some feel that might be a relatively j

I 6

conservative -- conservative in that it is a low number.

7 This Applicant did do a limited seismio margin FMA, I

e or did a limited FMA.

Looked at the speottio question here i

a 9

was building interaction.

And showed a very substantial l

l 10 margin there.

1 J'

11 CCommissioner Roberts lett the meeting.)

12 COMMISSIONEM EEMNTHAL:

What is the building i

13 structure itself, built on?

I don't remember, and I was there j

l i

14 many months ago, but 1

15 MM. XNIGHT:

I don't remember att the top of my head 16 myselt.

I'm told it is engineered backtill ok soil, j

i J

17 COMMISSIONEM BEMNTHAL:

All right.

t 1

18 MM. STEMN:

In conotusion, sir, the Statt concludes i

l 19 that the Licensee will satisty all the requirements for l

l 30 full-power license.

I I

21 CHAIMMAN PALLADINO:

Thank you very much.

i i

i 22 I'm going to see it the Commissioners have any l

23 residual questions.

I have gotten all of mine answered along i

(

24 the way.

I j

26 COMMISSIONEM ASSELSTINE:

I think mine are pretty t

00 1

well covered, too.

2 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

Yes.

3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Yes.

4 CHA!HMAN PALLADINO:

Then, I suggest that we give 5

the representatives of OSU an opportunity to come forward and 6

discuss the plant as they see it.

?

CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Mr. Cahill, we are pleased to B

have you here.

9 MR. CAHILL:

It is good to see you.

10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

You might introduce your 11 colleague.

We will give you an opportunity to make whatever 12 statement you would like, and then turn to Commission 13 questions.

14 MR. MURRILL:

My name is Paul Murrill, and I have 15 the privilege of serving as Chairman of the Board and Chiet 16 Executive Otticer of Gulf States Utilities.

17 I thank you very much for the opportunity to make a 18 statement.

19 As you know, Mr. Cahill is Senior Vice President of 20 Gutt States, in charge of all nuclear activities.

He reports 21 directly to me.

We feel very tortunate to have a man of his 22 experience and espabilities in charge of our activities.

He 23 has over 30 years at experience in nuclear related work.

He 24 lives in St. Francisville, and is there at the site, which I 25 think we, as a company, place a high premium on.

~

67 1

CCommissioner Robe'rts returned to the meeting.]

2 We have another otticer of the company, a Vice 3

President, Mr. Jim Doddens, who also is there active on site.

4 He also has over 30 years of nuclear experience.

Mr. Doddens 5

is not here today, he is minding the store.

And I think that 6

reflects something of our commitment to intense management, 1

7 hands-on control of this project.

8 I would like to introduce to you two other people 9

from Gult States who are here today.

One is Dr. Linn Draper, i

10 who has his doctorate degree in nuclear engineering, was a

{

11 taculty member at the University of Texas, is the Vice Chairman j

12 of our company, and who is also the current President of the 4

13 American Nuclear Society.

Dr. Draper is here in the room.

14 One comment was made also about the tact that early 15 on in this project, our Board appointed from within its own 16 members, a Board Committee on Nuclear Safety.

And this has

)

17 been, we think, a very good aspect of this project.

It has 18 brought Board control and review to the project on a regular 19 continuing basis.

20 In addition to those Board members, this Board j

21 committee works much like an audit committee does.

But also I

l 22 like a Board Audit Committee, we thought it appropriate to I

23 retain for them technical experts, just like a Board Audit 24 Committee will retain independent auditors to assist them, i

I 25 So, we appointed a committee of technical experts to serve i

68 o

i under the direction, and as colleagues with the Board Committee 2

on Nuclear Safety.

4 3

That Technical Expert Committee is chaired by 4

Dr. Tom Figiord, nuclear engineering faculty at the University 5

of California, Berkeley.

j 6

Also on that committee is Dr. Ned Lambremont, who is 7

Director of the Nuclear Science Center at LSU and a biologist.

4 I

i 8

1 l

9 Also on the committee is Dr. Herb Woodson, who is i

10 Director of Energy Studies at the University of Texas, i

11 And, I think it is significant that t w o ' o t' t'h e t h 'r e e l

1 12 members of the committee are members of the National Academy 13 of Engineering.

4 14 The Board Committee has been a most ettective 15 committee for us, and we have a r e p r e s e n t a t i~ve ' o f thatyBoard 16 Committee here today, who is General Robert Barrow, who,is a 17 member of our Board and on this Board Committee of Nnotear i

l 18 Safety.

And I introduce him.

3 19 General Barrow, up untti June 30th of 1983, was 1

1 20 Commandant of the Marine Corps.

And, upon his retirement he

{

21 returned to his boyhood home, which is about six miles from

}

22 this plant.

And we enticed him very quickly th:1oin our 23 Board of Directors, and also to become a member ut this

]

24 committee, and to serve,as a special consultant to River Bend

~

25 in matters of security and evacuation planning.

Ng 6

<-c-.

-e w-,

z-w.-

..v9-

.m 2--

09 1

In general, this process has worked very well 2

I guess a summary comment that I will make to you is 3

that we have tried to bring very intense management control 4

and an intense application of resources to building this plant 5

right and to making certain that it is a model plant.

6 I am ready to sit here today and to make a commitment 7

to you that we will continue to bring the appropriate level of 8

resources and the attention and just personal commitment to 9

ensure that the plant starts up well and it runs well and it 10 runs safely.

11 We would be happy to answer any questions.

12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Thank you, Dr. Murrill 13 Unfortunately, I didn't get to this plant before 14 this time, although I had it planned twice.

But, everything I 15 hear has been very laudatory.

We very much appreciate the 16 commitment that you give us to continue your high level of 17 performance.

18 Let me turn now to my colleagues.

I think there 19 were a couple of questions that were raised earlier, that had 20 been referred to you and Mr. Cahill for possibly answering.

21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

I had the one on the 22 educational training experience of the three people performing

~

23 the STA iunction.

24 MR. CAHILL:

Two of those have degrees, BS in 4

2.5 physical science.

So, they meet the latest policy guidance.

C' 4

a

  • 4 6

70 1

The other four have, ranging from 117 to 66 credits, 2

degree credits.

4 3

We had initially started with the concept of 4

4 preferably the shift supervisor, an SRO, of course, being the 5-shift technical advisor.

We thought that was best.

It 6

combines the authority of management with the authority of 7

technical knowledge, and is probably the best thing when you I

8 need a shift technical advisor.

Of course, it is ideal for 9

him to have an engineering degree.

10' We tried to approach that by giving the people who 11 were then our employees, a special course which was engineering 12 subjects, mathematics, physics, thermodynamics, nuclear 13 engineering, the technical parts of an engineering degree.

And 14 these people all have that.

That is what the 66 credits a

15 represent.

Some of those got it at other companies, and we 16 verified that that was equivalent.

17 We, of course, will follow the policy guidance of 18 the Commission, and we are glad to have the time to do it.

19 We have some concern for the people who we have selected.

We 20 think they are probably the best.

And we will help them get i

21 degrees.

22 Meanwhile, we have other people who have degrees, 23 who are prepared to, in the course of time, take over the 24 shift technical advisor r,o l e.

25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

But you do plan to have the

71 a

1 STA/SRO combination tilled with an individual with a degree by 2

the end of the first refuelling 3

MM. CAHILL:

Or we would -- that's the idea, but I 4

don *t think we can achieve that by the end of 18 months.

We 5

will, in the case where we can't do that, we will have an 6

engineering degree STA.

And we can do that.

7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Okay.

8 Other questions?

Fred?

9 COMMISSIONER BEHNTHAL:

Yes.

I had one question 10 that I mentioned a while back, which you may or may not want 11 to talk about in much detail 12 I was really just curious, because I remember quite 13 well, Paul, when you came about a year and a half ago, I 14 guess, and introduced yourself.

I remember thinking to 15 myself, this man believes he can finish a plant in five and a 16 half years, and wondering it maybe either he or I didn't 17 understand this business very well, But, he has come very 18 close to doing that.

19 So, it surprised me when I heard what I believe was 20 to be a rather high kilowatt hour installed cost.

How did 21 that happen?

22 MR. CAHILL:

Well, I would like to address that.

23 It is the latest plant to go into service, a nuclear j

1 24 plant.

And as such it reflects the entirety of all of the l

25 factors that affect costs in nuclear plants.

i

~

72 s

1 One of the major impacts on costs, and you can see 2

it in all the published data, is the construction cost index.

3 It never was higher than in the period 1980 to

'84, that this 4

plant went through its major construction.

You have to 5

normalize that before you really compare dollars per kilowatt.

6 I think that considering that it complied very 7

closely with all of the requirements which the Commission has, 8

which cost money, the high quality that we put in, the tast 9

construction pace, the intensive management t,o do it all with 10 the highest productivity, means that relatively for a 1985 11 vintage nuclear power plant it is low cost.

You will not be 12 able to tell that until we look at some other plants that come 13 after us.

14 I think we are right in the ballpark on costs.

15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Do you recall what the 16 number was on installed kilowatt J

17 MR. MURRILL:

I can comment on that.

18 What we do is go through each November, a grassroots 19 life of project estimate.

The current estimate that we are 20 working on, is the one that was put 'together in November of 21 1984, which direct cost is roughly a $2.7 billion cost.

22 It is our current estimate that we will exceed that 23 about 5120 million, which will put us just over 52.8 billion 24 in direct costs, for 940 megawatts, which is about 53000 per 25 megawatt.

73 1

There is on top of snat the cost of money, the 2

COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

I understand.

3 MR. MURRILL:

That gets to be a very complicated 4

subject.

The 30 percent owner, Cajun Electric Power 5

Cooperative has a different percentage cost of money than we 6

do.

We have had some modest amounts of CWIP in the 7

construction process.

It is 8

COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Okay.

More than enough.

9 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

Is your service area in IV Louisiana and Texas?

11 MR. MURRILL:

We have a service area that extends 12 from just east of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, along through 13 Lafayette, Lake Charles, Beaumont, Texas.

We then move over 14 towards Houston, swing around the northern part of Houston, 15 the Woodlands-Conroe and then up in the general direction --

16 we come, I think, within about 60 miles of Austin.

So, we are 17 about 380 miles long.

18 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

But you have two PUCs to 19 contend with?

20 MR. MURRILL:

Yes.

And we are roughly halt in each 21 state.

22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

Okay.

23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

I'll avoid any compliments 24 at this point.

We have learned from some hard experience 25 around here that that is the " kiss of death."

i l

i

74 e

1

[ Laughter.]

2 I will just say, you have a big job to do.

In my 3

judgment it has been done very well up to this point.

I 4

remember also thinking when you first stopped by that you and 5

those associated with you, as I learned later on in a visit to 6

your plant, represent what I view as a new generation of 7

management that is coming into play in this industry, and I 8

think that is all to the good.

There is a high involvement at 9

expertise in your ranks, as we have heard from the panel that i

10 you have reviewing your activities.

A lot of academicians.

11 The Commandant of the Marine Corps, I guess, maybe 12 an academician, but he is certainly something besides that, as 13 well.

In any case, I think those are all very good signs, and 14 I want to compliment you.

15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Thank you.

16 Lando, any questions or comments?

17 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

Just one quick comment, and 18 that is to say I would, like my colleague, not want to bring 19 you any bad luck in any comments I might make.

But, I do 20 think it is appropriate to comment on your management control 21 and your corrective action, your responsiveness.

I think it 22 is commendable.

23 I am pleased to see that it is a Category 1 I

24 think from what I can tell of your construction performance, 25 it is truly deserved, and it shows leadership and it shows

75 1

management involvement across the board not only in your 2

performance at the plant so far, but also in the management 3

organization you have put together, 4

So, I think that is certainly a powerful step in the 5

right direction of hopefully a very successful performance in 6

the future.

7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Thank you, Lando.

8 We are going to lose one of our wide receivers it we 9

don *t move quickly.

10

[ Laughter]

11 Is the Commission prepared to vote on the question 12 of authorizing the Stati to grant a full power-license to 13 River Bend?

14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Yes.

15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Yes.

16 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

Yes.

17 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

All right, all those in favor 19 of authorizing the Statt to grant a full-power license for 20 the River Bend Nuclear Power Plant, say aye.

21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:

Aye.

22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Aye.

23 COMMISSIONER ZECH:

Aye.

24 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

Aye.

25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

Aye.

70 1

I guess there are none opposed.

2 Well, then this represents the unanimous endorsement, 3

and we wish you the best of luck, and we thank you very much 4

for coming here today.

5 MR. MURRILL:

Thank you.

6 MR. CAMILL:

Thank you.

7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:

We stand adjourned.

8

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m.,

the Commission meeting 9

was adjourned.3 10

)

~

11 i

i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i

19 20 21 22 23 24 2$

f I

~_

s.

e s

1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2

3 4

5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6

before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 7

matter of: COMMISSION MEETING e

9 Name of proceeding:

Discussion /Possible Vote on Full Power Operating License for River Bend (Public to Meeting) 11 Docket No.

12 Place: Washington, D.

C.

a 13 Date:

Friday, November 15, 1985 14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission.

13

]

'//

/(7 p

(Signature) g

.y (Typed Name of Reporter)

Mimie Meldzer 20 21 22

(

23 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.

I j

24

(

25 l

C@EEH22H@M IEHEPHM@

lll?VKC? 3fGfROI M'lP!1.0300fR.

IW'1 P s 9 9 b Rip o s tr E d s e m n l

November 1985

Contact:

S. M. Stern 492-8349 l

l

[

'P TTC1TETM C&TE' 'T1 Z

e LICENSE 3/PLAhT BACKGROUND

= SELECTED ISSUES e CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW o LOW POWE:1 OP3lATIONS OVE:lVIEW e SALP RATINGS

  • ALLEGATIONS l

e IXVESTIGATIOXS e 2.206 PETITIONS i

l e CONCLUSION l

l 20dde D

"J'fHMYl//W' lkV'TP 1 AfIMR(6)THTO I

LICENSEE

@UEEB@g Gulf States Utilities Cajun Electric Power Cooperative

@P@B&V@B3 Gulf States Utilities PLAXT B@A@V@B: BWR 6: 2894 MWt,991 MWe

@@EVABB2332V Mark III

&#3 6 @@@@7BT@V@B3 Stone &. Webster SIT 3 l

= 2 miles from east bank of Mississippi River i

l in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana

= Largest Nearby Communities:

St. Francisville (4 mi NW, pop.1,471)

New Roads (7misv; pop.3,924)

Baton Rouge (l8 mi SE; pop. 219,400) 20d$9 0

O P

ETMLE'TI":22T12 i

{

e FSAR REVIEW

- TDI DIESEL QUALIFICATION

- EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION

- FIRE PROTECTION i

- HYDROGEN CONTROL e STAF3IFG/09E:lATING EXPE:lIEXCE j.

  • TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS l
  • EMERGENCY P:lEPAREDXESS I

Mdde 4

l 2AH"T@8@l3lRRA"'T@' WD RR

' RFC1 All#1/ENim(41 o PCANT STAFF: 38 LICENSES

- 28 SR0s (9SRos with pre vious BWR commercist experience)

- 10 R0s i

MhMM 2tinWMmn a 6 S:i::?T CAPABILITY e SHIFT COMPOSITIOX

- 1 SHIFT SUPERVISOR (SRO)

- 1 CONTROL ROOM FOREMAN (SRO)

- 2 CONTROL R00M 0PERATORS (R0s)

- 1 ADDITIONAL LICENSED OPERATOR

~

(Currently an SRO)

- STA FUNCTION-eithershift supervisor or controlroom foreman i

e Operating Staff meets hot operating I

experience requirements l

24/mmHalkar.=

e PLA3T-SPECIFIC 1

  • IX USE SINCE ;ULY 1983 Mode 3

7, t

earmnw'wr mwnwrwt

  • @@EEFET@2H@E REA DINESS A SSESSMENT REPORT (6-9-83) h3Sl.7 35N S$$13d1@3

'3 a

SUMMARY

- QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION (10-10-of) i

~

  • U@2E @@ITFB@;o EPE@@BAE

~

1 1

1

  1. Sdds #

e a

_ l

_k 5

.h.

@HRWIMWL o l FIB @E03;EATH@HAL G3 97a:E7EP o a99399E357 @9 @lFB3&7H@E9 mMe r 1

$AIEM 3AEldk mamam2nzra arsym abilR2R1192 JIt4912lt!!.a&2RaaM IfD27772 MANAGEMENT CONTROL i

1 CONSISTENT

~

CORRECTIVE ACTION &

REPORTING 2

I CONSISTENT DESIGN CONTROL 1

2 CONSISTENT QA (Construction) 2 2

CONSISTENT QA (Operation)

HA 2

CONSISTENT PREOP TESTING NA 2

CONSISTENT PLANT OPS TESTING NA 2

CONSISTENT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS NA 2

CONSISTENT TRAINING NA 2

CONSISTENT LICENSING 2

2 CONSISTENT ALL OTHER 2 or NA 2 or NA NO DECREASE NOTED 20dde e

K MATMTR IHERE IA7EEE 1

i l

AEK J2H2 l

l Mdde 9

l o

a L

+

4 5

1 4

e l

l I

l t

i 4

l

.i i

4 s

N d

l i

l f @ E f L W ilII @ E a

i 1

i I

i 1

f

(

i I

I a

I J,

i I

E 4

i 1

i 4

I f

l M0de 0@

b

__._t,_._

. _ _... _. - -. ~. _ _.. _. -..

IEIL Ela.EEEII K 2IE.

Items clunged between Low and Full Power Licenses

  • Setpdints i

e Rod Block Instrumentation e Fire Detection Instrumentation i

  • Air Locks 1

e HPCS Diesel Surveillance c

e Overcurrent Protection Devices j

l l

  • Refueling Platform Interlocks e Facility Review Committee l

i e Iodine Spikes i

e Isolation Valve Leakage L

L l

= Leakage Detection

  • Suppression Pool Pump Back System i

52.

1 EELIERhnliME1.23.

l S1

-I.ntroduction

" Turbine Maintenance Program S3 f

-Equipment Qualification

-Environmental Qualification i

l 86

-Hydrogen Control l

S8

-TDI Diesel Loading

\\

59

-Asiatic Clam Control i

i S13 -Shift Staffing

{

L j

-Emergency Plan i

l

-Containment Venting

)

S16 -Changes in Technical Specifications 1

818 -SPDS i

S19 -ACRS El

]

r b

k_kkt0khht00bhhhk_kkkkt0kkkkkkkkg090t0&&hhh&__g_

N 9/35 TRANSMITTAL 'IO:

[

Dx. mmt (bntrol Desk, 016 Phillips u

mn ADVANCED 00PY 'IO: /

/

'Ibe Public Docunumt itxn

//,!/4f8$

g DATE:

cc: C&R tac FIOl:

SDCY OPS BRANCil papers)

Attached are copics of a Ormission meeting transcript (s) anl related meeting doctment(s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Dilly Accession List and placanent in the Public Doctment Itxn. No other distribution is requested or requiral. Existing DCS identification ntznbers are listed on the individual documents wherever knwn.

Feeting

Title:

NEsb /9.36l,le, iMc Fat Peec

.a OD Ad' k

5,c M

34.aAd Meeting Date:

It ff 5fS S Open Y..._ Closed I

E DCS Copics (1 of each checked)

Item

Description:

Copics Advanced Original Fby Duplicate To PDR

[bcummt be Dup

  • Copy
  • 1.

TIWCCRIPT 1

1 hhen checked, DCS should send a copy of this transcript to the LPDR for:

w / o ; w a e m w s.

~/

J A

2.

3.

4.

g (PDR is advanced one copy of each docunent,

  • Verify if in DCS, and h

two of each StrY paper.)

Change to "PDR Available."

.!.6 k

h b

b l$

i bb b

- - -