ML20138B025
| ML20138B025 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/05/1985 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1474, NUDOCS 8512120177 | |
| Download: ML20138B025 (322) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.
. 011GINAL d3(d8N /774 /
O UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: ADVISORY CO:01ITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 308TH GENERAL MEETING Df2rri I '.i't. ri. RITIri?. it l ' ? d. ?' 'G
. i'~,
AJ . ' - 1 '+-!! Th. t: e. l [ k 11 I.a lis t .h Yeh 1tt'
.;-1.; 0 7 O
LOCATION- WASIIINGTON , D. C. PAGES: 1 - 189 DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1985 MR8OFFICECOPYC' 30d07., leg 0V8ITom ACRSTice ERAL REPORTERS, INC. O "" fai
" ' ", 3 pI>H 0lficial Stporters 444 North Ca k Washington,.C.20001bitol Street
[o (202)347 3700 bk sar:oswios covsaact
CR25321.O DAV/ojg 1 I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 308TH GENERAL MEETING 4 5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1046 6 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. Thursday, December 5, 1985 8 The 308th General Meeting convened at 8:45 a.m., Mr. 9 David A. Ward, Chairman, presiding. 10 ACRS MEMBERS PRESENT: 11 MR. DAVID A. WARD 12 l MR. JESSE C. EBERSOLE
. DR. ROBERT C. AXTMANN 14 l q DR. MAX W. CARBON 15 [j !
DR. WILLIAM KERR 6 DR. HAROLD W. LEWIS ! 17 !' ' DR. CARSON MARK 18 MR. CARLYLE MICHELSON 19 MR. HAROLD ETHERINGTON I DR. DADE W. MOELLER 20 I DR. DAVID OKRENT 21 , MR. GLENN A. REED 22 DR. FORREST J. REMICK 4 DR. PAUL G. SHEWMON j 2d weseres case, tees,Inc. DR. CHESTER P. SIESS l l 25 MR. CHARLES J. WYLIE I L
PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1985 The contents of this stenographic transcript.of the proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), as reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions recorded at the meeting held on the above date. No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at O , this meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript. e b O 1
3210 01 01 2 DAVbw 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 MR. WARD: Our first item on the agenda is 3 discussion of a proposed revision to regulations governing 4 operator licensing requirements. 5 We had a subcommittee meeting on this about a 6 week and a half ago. I think the subcommittee was 7 reasonably well satisfied with what we heard about the 8 approach being taken by the Staff. Much of it is not new, 9 but has been brought together, it's bringing a number of 10 things together in a more cohesive form. There aren't 11 really many new concepts. We do plan to write a letter on 12 the topic from the subcommittee meeting. ( 13 There may be one or two comments we would make in 14 the letter, but the subcommittee would be willing to express 15 general approval, but I'd like the committee to hear the 16 story, so I'll call on Bruce Boger of the Staf f to give us 17 an introduction. Then we'll hear from other people on his 18 staff. Bruce? 19 MR. BOGER: Thank you. My name is Bruce Boger, ; i 20 Chief of the Operator Licensing Branch. 21 We appreciate the opportunity to present our 22 efforts in the rulemaking changes in the operator licensing 23 area. We particularly thank the Human Factors Subcommittee 24 for their prompt attention and quick turnaround of our ( 25 presentations just last week. ACE-FEDEP AL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Ns.lonwide Coverase 800 336 4646
3210 01 02 3 1 Just to refresh your memory and make sure we all {~j}DAVbw ~ l 2 start at the same place, this rulemaking package actually ) l 3 includes two rules, Part 55, which is where the major rule 4 changes are. That deals with operator licenses and then 5 Part 50, as they apply to production and utilization 6 facilities. 7 To implement these two rules, we have three 8 Regulatory Guides that go along with it -- Reg Guide 1.134 9 on essentially, medical eligibility, Reg Guide 1.149, the 10 Sumulation Facilities; and Reg Guide 1.8, which discusses 11 qualifications and training of power plant operators. 12 At the end of the discussion, after we've had a () 13 chance to review each of the rule changes and proposed rule 14 changes and proposed Reg Guide changes, I'd like to take a 15 few moments to discuss how these rule changes support 16 industry activity in this area. 17 (Slide.) 18 I think it's important to try to gain a 19 perspective of where we came from in this whole operator 20 licensing rule change package. It has been ongoing for 21 quite a while. Essentially, after the TMI accident, we 22 implemented several changes which were intended to be 23 short-term in nature, changes that we deemed necessary to 24 immediately improve operator qualifications, training and () 25 examinations. The majority of those came out around March ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
3210 01 03 4 1 1980, when we required that heat transfer and thermodynamics' (}DAVbw 2 become part of an operator licensing training program. 3 We had eligibility requirements placed on senior , 4 operators, such that they would have to be an operator for 1 5 one year before they sat for a license. I included some , 6 information, such as requiring three months on shift to 7 assure that people were getting training in the control room 8 prior to sitting for an examination. These were short-term 9 actions. 10 About the same time or a little after that, we 11 developed our human factors program plan. In the human. 12 factors program plan, we did an analysis or had planned an 13 analysis of the operating licensing program, looking at the c 14 overall ef fects of the program and also identified long-term 15 improvements that we had to make. 16 Shortly thereafter, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 17 particularly Section 306, came along and caused us to 18 accelerate that schedule of rulemaking. We also decided at 19 that time that it was probably a good opportunity for-us to 20 make the TMI 2 changes part of the rule, those that we 21 thought were long term in nature. And also to clarify some 22 of the operator licensing requirements that had caused us 23 problems when we regionalized about the same time. s 24 Things that seemed clear to us in the rule,
.m kl 25 suddenly became interpreted by five different regions, and I
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80 4 336-6646-
Tip. . . . m -- a
+ ?
'3210 01 04 5 l
we wanted to make sure that the final rule incorporated
/ DAVbw l 2 those clarifications.
l 3 We published these in about February 1984 as SECY 4 84-76.and 76A.' These basically combined both training and 5 qualiiication^and operator licensing requirements. The 7
~5.; Commission acted on that in September 1984, after they had e- . e A,- . 7,, had considerable interface with industry, particularly y' r..
8 LSUMARC, in industry initiatives in the area of training and
,,. 9 qualif-ications. The Commission directed us, in September of
'- 10 '84 to hold back on new rule changes on training and 11 j qualifications for about two years but to go ahead with s
QJ 12 J , those changes necessary with respect to operator licensing. , r 13I , So based on the Commission direction in November 1[ and Deccaber of 1984, we published Part 55 and Part 50 as 15 proposed rule changes. Then in December, we published the
' '16 , Reg Guide that went along with it.
17; During the comment period the Commission also pl8 published its final policy statement on training and
",19 ' qualifications. That came out in March of '85. Then the 20 comment period'also ended around March of '85. So since
- g\" 21 March of '85 until now, we've been trying to resolve public I 22 comments, incorporate regional concerns.
Y , j - 4 23 I'have another slide that shows basically how we
^
24 w9ny. through the resolution of comments.
'O 25 ~ '(stia >
j , t r l X ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. w 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
- ~ . _ _ _ , _ - . _ _ _ .- . . . . . . . . , ,_ . _ , _ . . _ _ - _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . -
i 3210 01 05 6 ?^T DAVbw 1 I think it's fair to say that we felt that this O 2 rule change was going to affect a wide body of people. It 3 affects all licensed operators. And in order to make sure 4 that the operators found out about the changes that we were 5 going to impose on them, we distributed the proposed rule to 6 all licensed operators. That's over 4000 individuals, as , 7 well as the normal distribution to training facilities and 8 facility licensees. 9 Needless to say, when we distributed that widely, 10 we got several comments. We got over 1600 comments from 135 11 commenters. The commenters typically were -- there were 12 some individuals. There were some training organizations. () 13 There were some training groups like NUMARC and other 14 people. 15 So I think it represents a wide variety of people 16 commenting on the rules. 17 As I said earlier, we wanted to make sure that , 18 the regions who now have been delegated the responsibility 19 for conducting examinations were on board with the changes 20 that we're proposing. 21 We had them in and we had a meeting with them and 22 distributed the proposed rule changes, and essentially 23 reached a consensus with the Regional Operator Licensing ) 24 Staff as to where we were headed with the rule change. 25 Finally, we had to factor in a policy statement l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3366646
\
i 3210 01 06 7 1 on training and qualifications, just to make sure that we
)DAVbw 2 were following the Commission guidance on how to t
3 implement our rules and keeping abreast of industry 4 initiatives in the area. 5 Do we have any questions on the background rules, 6 so far? 7 DR. MARK: I'm afraid I have a question to which 8 everybody else will know the answer. 9 When you have> proposed a rule which has not yet 10 been adopted, you simultaneously may propose some Reg 11 Guides. You said you did that at one point. What's the 12 effect of a Reg Guide? Can anybody ignore it with impunity, () 13 or do they have to pay some attention'to it or what? 14 MR. BOGER: Basically, the Reg Guide is one 15 acceptable way to the Staff of meeting the requirements. , 16 DR. MARK: I understand Staff is very happy with 17 the Reg Guide, but I'm not on the-Staff, and I see you've . 18 just written a new Reg Guide. 19 What do I do with it? 2g MR. BOGER: Most facilities commit to those Reg > 21 Guides, as far as their FSAR or their tech specs. 22 DR. MARK: So the Reg Guide has the effect of a 23 rule, even though it hasn't been adopted, it's just been 24 proposed by you. () ' 25 MR. BOGER: Right now it's still a proposed Reg 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(Hl646 3
3210 01 07 8
; 1 Guide. When it became a final Reg Guide and then people
{'DAVbw 2 committed to it, we would expect them to honor those 3 commitments within that Reg Guide. 4 DR. MARK: I'm still a little lost. I'm an 5 outsider. I see you've just come up with a new Reg Guide. , 6 I don't like it. 7 What do I have to do? Do I have to get in line, 8 because you're going to clobber me over the head or waht? 9 MR. BOGER: You have to propose an alternative 10 that would be accepted by the Staff. 11 DR. MARK: Why should I have to do anything? 12 MR. BOGER: You have to meet the rule, which is 13 Part 55. 14 DR. MARK: The rule hasn't come in yet. 15 MR. BOGER: Maybe I'm missing your point. Right 16 now the rule is still a proposed rule. The Reg Guide is a 17 Proposed Reg Guide. No one is being required to meet either 18 one of those right now. They're applying the old Reg Guide 19 and the old rule change or the old existing rule change. 20 DR. MARK: So you mentioned somewhere along the 21 way here that you've proposed a rule and you sent out a 22 number of Reg Guides. And I'm an outsider and the rule is 23 not in effect yet. It took two years to get the rule in 24 effect. The Reg Guides are sitting there all the time. 25 Do I or do I not have to pay attention to them? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
3210 01 08 9
)
1 MR. BOGER: The Reg Guides are still Proposed Reg
/~ DAVbw \./
2 Guides also. l 3 DR. MARK: So I can ignore them entirely. 4 MR. BOGER: You have some requirements you have 5 to meet now. You've already committeed to another Reg Guide 6 or another standard. 7 DR. MARK: An older adopted rule. 8 MR. BOGER: That's correct. You are meeting some 9 requirements now. We're proposing different requirements, 10 but we're not imposing them until they become a final. 11 DR. MARK: So when you proposed some Reg Guides 12 two years ago, I don't have to pay a nickel's worth of () 13 attention to them. 14 MR. BOGER: Not to a Proposed Reg Guide. 15 DR. MARK: Well, the Reg Guides you've adopted, 16 the Reg Guides you've promulgated. 17 DR. SIESS: They relate to a rule that's already 18 been promulgated too. 19 DR. MARK: You mean they've change the rule. 20 DR. REMICK: Carson, are you talking 21 hypothetically or about this situation? 22 DR. MARK: I'm talking about the story we just 23 heard. 24 DR. REMICK: Well, Part 55 has been in existence l () 25 for many years. They're now proposed a revision. There ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
3210 01 09 10 l'"}DAVbw 1 were some Regulatory Guides in existence, some of which ! V 2 they are revising. I think the medical one is new or not? 3 Oh, it's a revision. So they're revising. So 55 and the 4 Reg Guides have already been in existence. They're now 5 revising them to bring them up-to-date. 6 DR. HARK: I appreciate that, but when do they 7 come up-to-date? As I heard the picture, 55 is in 8 existence. There were new Reg Guides developed a year or so 9 ago, but 55 was not changed until much more recently. 10 DR. REMICK: It's being changed now. We're 11 seeing the final version. 12 DR. HARK: Do I have to pay a nickel's worth of 13 attention to the Reg Guides developed in 1984? 14 DR. REMICK: I think what Bruce has said is that 15 you don't until they have been accepted by the Commission 16 and put out. Then that's one way of meeting the 17 regulations, Part 55 and 50. If you don't want to follow 18 those Reg Guides, then you have to propose an alternative 19 way of meeting the regulation. 20 DR. MARK: I don't understand why I don't have to 21 do anything. 22 DR. SIESS: There's still a confusion here. 23 DR. REMICK: I see what you mean, whether they 24 can comply with the old Part 55. I see. o kl 25 DR. SIESS: When he said that the Reg Guides are i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
3210 01 10 11 1 not effective yet, is that correct? {}DAVbw 2 MR. BOGER: The requirements within these 3 proposed Reg Guides are not being applied right now. 4 DR. SIESS: They're proposed Reg Guides; they 5 have not been approved. They've been out for public 6 comment. 7 MR. BOGER: And now they're coming back for 8 review through our cycle. 9 DR. SIESS: Do you expect to keep the Reg Guides 10 in step with the rules? 11 MR. BOGER: That's our hope, to have them go 12 together. 13 DR. SIESS: You see, if you go back, 14 historically, Reg Guides were developed as a means of 15 complying with the rules. Most of those rules existed. Now 16 what we're seeing in the Staff in the past couple of years, 17 is the idea of developing the rule and the Reg Guide more or 18 less concurrently.- In fact, there's a strong tendency to 19 take a lot of things that normally would have been in a rule 20 and put them in a Reg Guide, because it's easier to change a 21 Reg Guide. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know. But 22 they are being handled as a package; am I correct? 23 MR. BOGER: That's correct. 24 DR. SIESS: And you expect by the time the rule 25 is adopted that the Reg Guides will be adopted as guidance I i
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646
3210 01 11 12 1 to the rules. (])DAVbw 2 MR. BOGER: That's correct. 3 DR. MARK: But in the meantime, you've proposed a 4 Reg Guide. The rule is not yet laid down, and I'm an 5 outsider and objector. And I can say, take your old Reg 6 Guide and stuff it. 7 DR. SIESS: They said there will not be a Reg 8 Guide effective until the rule is effective. You're 9 assuming the Reg Guide is ef fective before the rule. 10 MR. BOGER: There exists now a Part 55 that has 11 requirements. 12 DR. SIESS: That's the old rule, the old Reg 13 Guide. 14 MR. BOGER: It exists today. It is law. And we 15 have existing Reg Guides that tell you one way of meeting 16 that regulation. Those apply now. You're already committed 17 to them. You're already meeting those requirements. What 18 we're doing now is proposing changes to both the regulation 19 and Reg Guide, and we're doing them together so that there 20 is no confusion as to what we mean within the rule when we 21 make a certain change. 22 DR. SIESS: Part A of a Reg Guide cites all of 23 the applicable laws and regulations to which it is an 24 adjunct. I assume yours do. I don't know what division , ("T i
\l 25 we're in.
I l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646
3210 01 12 13 1 What division are these Reg Guides in? What's f*)*DAVbw \s 2 the first digit? 3 MR. BOGER: 1.8. 4 DR. SIESS: Okay. 1.8. On the new Reg Guide 5 you're proposing, does Part A reference the proposed revised 6 rule? 7 MR. BOGER: Yes. 8 DR. SIESS: With a date or something or have you 9 got a new number? 10 MR. BOGER: We work by revision numbers. The Reg 11 Guides reference the rule change. 12 DR. SIESS: Can I pick up your Proposed Reg Guide
} 13 and know precisely what rule it refers to, not by number but 14 by date?
15 MR. BOGER: Yes. 16 DR. SIESS: This Reg Guide would only ply to the 17 rules, the specifically reference rule, and if that rule has 18 not been approved, the Reg Guide would have no meaning? 19 MR. BOGER: That's right. 20 DR. SIESS: Does that help? 21 DR. MARK: Very much. 22 DR. REMICK: Another way of looking at, and I'm 23 not sure if this is your question, Carson, but suppose that 24 the new Part 55 is promulgated sometime soon. Somebody then 25 says on the medical requirements, I want to keep them as ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-33M646
3210 01 13 14 0,DAVbw 1 they were in the past. We're going to have M.Ds. examine 2 people, and we're going to send them into the Commission. 3 Are the forced into following the new Reg Guide, 4 or can they continue as they havs in the past? 5 MR. BOGER: I would think that would be something 6 that we could go ahead. They're proposing another way of 7 meeting our regulations and someone would have to decide yes 8 or now. 9 VOICE: Usually the new revised form is in the 10 rules, so that particular example doesn't work. But if they 11 wanted to follow a different medical standard other than the 12 A&S standard, they can propose another one. 13 DR. REMICK: So if it wasn't a more specific 14 requirement, and they wanted to live under some provision of 15 a prior Regulatory Guide, that would be considered an 16 alternative way and would be reviewed by the Staff. 17 MR. BOGER: It would have to be reviewed by the 18 Staff. 19 DR. SIESS: Is this considered a backfit? 20 MR. BOGER: Yes. This is why we're going through 21 the complete review. 22 DR. MOELLER: You mentioned earlier that the 23 different regions were interpreting, I guess the rule in 24 different ways or the Reg Guides, whichever it was, and 25 therefore, you had to convene a meeting to get these ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 . Nationwide Coq _ 800-336-6646
3210 01 14 15 [T,DAVbw 1 differences resolved. This was presented as if it were an V 2 unusual circumstances. 3 Don't the regions have problems in the uniform 4 interpretation of all the rules? 5 Why wouldn't you have a regular mechanism for 6 coordinating the ways in which the different regions 7 interpret the rules? 8 MR. BOGER: I guess I can only speak to how my 9 particular area tries to maintain awareness of how the 10 regions are implementing our guidance in operator 11 licensing. We have an audit system or review system, 12 whereby we visit each region once a year for an office () 13 audit. Each quarter we go out and we observe examiners, 14 evaluate examinations to see that those examinations are in 15 accordance with what we feel the standards are, and those 16 standards are what we've published as NUREG 1021. So it's 17 available not only to the faiclity licensees and the 18 operators but also to the regional examiners. 19 DR. MOELLER: And presumably, other NRC Staff are 20 going out and checking on whatever they're responsible for. 21 MR. BOGER: I'm aware that NMSS has similar I 22 audits and NRR has other problems for instances where we've 23 delegated authority to the regions on certain items. l 24 () 25 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-66 4
3210 02 01 16 DAVbw 1 DR. MARK: I am unclear why there is room for (')T s_ 2 any, whatever, difference from one region to the other, in 3 the way they read their papers and send out. 4 Don't you send them out so clearly that they know 5 exactly what they must do that you have to bring them in and 6 ask them, do you understand this? What on earth goes on 7 here? You have operator licensing thoughts in mind. How 8 can the regions conceivably have different ideas of what you 9 mean? 10 MR. BOGER: I'll pick on the one that we always 11 get a lot of grief about. In the regulation it requires 12 that we examine operators on the theory of nuclear plant 13 operations. 14 Now theory can range from a subparticle analysis 15 or it can go up to applied theory. What we try to do is try 16 and give sufficient guidance in our examiner standards to 17 try to make uniform what the regions would ask questions on 18 in regard to theory of plant operation systems. We're 19 talking about people that are giving exams on a power plant, 20 and there's just a wealth of information that's available. 21 We're trying to focus the exam content on the operator's job 22 primarily and nct on other aspects of the power plant. 23 DR. MARK: Look, that sounds just great. I'm 24 still terribly uneasy about the possibility at Region 3, O
\/ 25 which is maybe up in the north central part of the country, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 02 02 17 1 and Region 1, which is in the southeast or vice versa, I {v]DAVbw 2 don't know where they are. 3 DR. REMICK: Northeast. 4 DR. MARK: I don't care where they are. I care 5 very much that they're different. Why is it imaginable that 6 there is any room left for any difference? 7 MR. BOGER: We've always had difference in 8 operator licensing? 9 - DR . MARK: Why do you allow itr? 10 MR. BOGER: We can't help it. 11 DR. MARK: You could help it, if you did it 12 yourself. () 13 MR. BOGER: You have SQ different people giving 14 examinations throughout the country. You can't expect 15 every one of those individuals to do it exactly the same 16 way. 17 DR. MARK: You could standardize the exam that 18 they give. 19 MR. BOGER: We could give the same exam each 20 time. If we change the exam to reflect new plant procedures 21 and tech specs, we can't give the new exam each time. For 22 exam security purpose, we can't give the same exam 23 throughout the country. 24 DR. MARK: There's something screwy going on A (_) 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 02 03 18 ' (')DAVbw 1 here. Nm-2 MR. BOGER: Okay. The next part of the program, 3 Dr. Susan Shankman will discuss the proposed changes to 4 Parts 1.50 and .55 and also to 1.34. 5 DR. SHANKMAN: Good morning. 6 As Bruce told you, we're changing the rule from 7 the current way we do business. 8 (Slide.) 9 One of the areas that we're changing is the 10 written examination. We've kept the categories basically 11 the same, some rewording, but in the past, our examiners ! 12 have developed their exams based on material that has come 13 to them from the facility, and that's been the training 14 material. 15 We've also used the categories listed in .55 and 16 in NUREG 0733, which were the results of TMI. 17 We proposed that in the rule, we will also use 18 facility materials, but now we will emphasize and 19 ultimately rely solely on facility learning objectives that 20 are derived from the systematic analysis of the operator's 21 job, and we expect that each plant will have these as the 22 result of the accreditation. 23 (Slide.) 24 Besides a written exam, we give each applicant s. 25 for an operator license an operating test, which consists ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 _ , Nationwide Coverase _ . 800 336 6646
3210 02 04 19 f'}DAVbw 1 of two parts. There's a plant walk-through and something we v 2 call a " simulator exam," which is really a job sample. 3 Right now we have said that that exam is meant to 4 demonstrate the understanding of, and then we've listed 12 5 items. We've changed the emphasis exam, so that instead of 6 just saying " demonstrate an understanding of," we're also 7 saying that the candidate has to show that they have the 8 ability to perform the actions necessary to do the same list 9 of items, only we've added the ability to function within 10 the control room team. 11 That was something that had not been part of the 12 operating test, explicitly. () 13 MR. MICHELSON: Excuse me. When you say 14 " walk-through," do you mean that part of the exam is walking 15 through the plant, quizzing the operator on various aspects? 16 DR. SHANKMAN: Yes. It's an oral exam. 17 DR. MOELLER: I wanted to ask on that, I thought 18 I read someplace that you do not give an oral or, in fact, 19 you were somewhat opposed to an oral exam, but I gather this 20 is specifically comparable to or is an oral exam? 21 DR. SHANKMAN: In fact, the exam breaks down in 22 the regulation into two parts, written and operating test. 23 The operating test itself, basically, has two 24 parts, one of which is a one-on-one oral exam and the other 25 is a team in the control room, simulated, or if they don't l l ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- l. - 202
____347-3700 ,_ Nationwide Coverage 800-336 66M
3210 02 05 20 1 have a simulator, then we do it another way. ()DAVbw 2 DR. MOELLER: Thank you. 3 DR. MARK: Could I ask, you said something that 4 sounded like an exam or a discussion, at least, of operating 5 within the operating room team. 6 Now let's pretend that that operator -- operating 7 room is run by a crusty old guy, and he can't work very well 8 with that creature. 9 Is that what you're discussing? 10 DR. SHANKMAN: Ther are certain team aspects like 11 communicating information between team members, and we give 12 a license to an individual, but we would expect, and we ( 13 would test for on the operating test, regardless of whether 14 they get along with the other members of the team, if they 15 could communicate the appropriate information or that they 16 could receive information and act on it appropriate with in 17 the control room. 18 DR. MARK: It's not a matter of personality, 19 which could be a very important factor, it's a matter of 20 awareness and acting properly. 21 DR. SHANKMAN: Right. And the exact wording says 22 " Demonstrate the applicant's ability to function within the 23 control room team, so that procedural and facility license 24 limitations are maintained." 25 DR. MARK: If you would use the word, not control ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3 %-6646
3210 02 06 21 7 NDAVbw 1 team but control room context, then I think I would have b 2 been totally with you. 3 The " team" calls up the appearance and the 4 psychological features of the other people present. 5 DR. REMICK: Carson, outside, I think, the 6 regulatory context, there are people who are working on team 7 training, in which they try to get that crusty old shif t 8 supervisor to realize he's a crusty old shift supervisor, 9 and therefore, if other members of the team are going to 10 work, every once in a while they have to challenge him, and 11 he has to undeistand that that's important for them to 12 challenge him. They've also got to get the other team () 13 members to realize that that is a crusty old so-and-so, and 14 you just have to overlook it. And if you have something 15 important to contribute, hit him over the head. Make sure 16 he knows that you think something's wrong. 17 There is an effort, and I think the NRC has an 18 involvement, and it comes from airline training, that is, 19 try to get people to understand what it takes to work 20 together. i 21 q DR. MARK: I am totally in favor of that idea, as , 22 you express it. I am a little bit frightened about putting 23 it into a regulatory context, where the quality of the team 24 could be anything. i l /')N (_ 25 DR. REMICK: To the best of my knowledge, it's l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M646
3210 02 07 22 1 not in regulatory, but outside that, there are people {)DAVbw 2 working on this team training, including the psychological 3 aspects of how to get along with one another, realizing that 4 people are different. 5 MR. WARD: But Carson's point is that " context" 6 is probably a better word here than " team," because a person 7 isn't licensed to operate only with another group of people, 8 but rather -- 9 DR. MARK: With that situation. 10 MR. WARD: Excuse me. I think Glenn is next. 11 MR. REED: Some of it's been clarified. This 12 team concept, as it came up, frightened me a little bit, O s_j 13 when I saw it coming up, because you realize, of course, 14 that people are rotated, and there's holidays and vacations, 15 and all this kind of thing, and you never do have a 16 discrete, fixed team. 17 Your objective in the power plants is to balance 18 the team effort, but they know there are occasions when 19 you've got to rotate people in an oat. So the ability to 20 function within the team bothered me a little bit. 21 I'm beginning to like the word " context." 22 DR. SHANKMAN: And of course, we don't mean a 23 specific team. We mean the ability to go into any crew and 24 operate.
) 25 MR. EBERSOLE: May I ask a question, please, l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ll02-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4336 6646
3210 02 08 23 DAVbw 1 before you leave that slide. 2 I am looking at 3 " Requires applicant to demonstrate understanding 4 of and the ability to perform the actions...." 5 In other words, to understand why he's doing what 6 he's doing. 7 I'd like to call out a particular case and have 8 you tell me whether that's wrong or not. 9 We had a rather severe overcooling event at 10 Rancho Seco not too long ago, and as you know, BTS is one of 11 our current worries. I first learned, to my astonishment, 12 that NRC permitted that plant to be designed with no main () 13 steam isolation valves, and it lined up the plant to be 14 subject to depressurization on the secondary side, with no 15 means to cut off the steam flow. 16 What they, in essence, did, they had a trip, and 17 one of the minor bypass relief valves stuck open. This left 18 the secondary side down in temperature. That proceeded to 19 pull the primary side temperature down, and I don't remember 20 the exact number of degrees or how many seconds it occurred, 21 but there was a rather substantial chilling event, without
- 22 the opportunity, because of having no main steam isolation 23 valve, there's no way to cut this exhausting of steam to the 24 leaking point, and it could have been a large bypass valve. .
() 25 There's only one other recourse, and that appears ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Natior. wide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 02 09 24 1 to be to stop this chilling event, and that is to trip the {}DAVbw 2 main cooling pump. And that was not done. 3 Why wasn't that done? Do the operators 4 understand the fundamental principles of how to intercept 5 cascades to trouble like this? 6 MR. BOGER: I think it's fair to say that if 7 their procedures required them to trip the pumps, they would 8 have. I think that's a bigger issue. 9 MR. EBERSOLE: If they're procedures don't, why 10 should they not? 11 MR. BOGER: If that was one -- I don't know if I 12 that was analyzed as part of the emergency procedure
) 13 guidelines or in B&W's case.
14 MR. EBERSOLE: I'm strongly suspicious that we've 15 got a hole in either the design or operating logic here, 16 maybe both, and they have to fit. I wish as operators or 17 representatives of the operating segments of this 18 organization, you could look into that particular event. 19 And now Glenn's going to contradict what I said, and I 20 welcome him to do so. 21 MR, REED: No, I'd like to hear about your I 22 discussion, Jesse, but I think we ought to take this one up 23 in the Reactor Operations Group in January. 24 MR. EBERSOLE: Ebersole, it's involved right here (m (- 25 with operator training. l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3346M j
3210 02 10 25
/~^ DAVbw 1 MR. REED: Well, operators have their functions Q
2 and things to do and designers should have done their 3 thing. 4 MR. EBERSOLE: Operators should understand the 5 critical design aspects, the weaknesses and strengths of the 6 design, in order to cope with it. 7 MR. REED: Not unless the designer is completely 8 free and clear to tell them about it. 9 MR. EBERSOLE: Of course. And that's an 10 interlink that should be required. 11 MR. WARD: Jesse, if this case is as you 12 described, I find it hard to believe that we should expect (~~) (/ 13 the operators to respond in a certain way, if the people who 14 wrote the procedures hadn't considered this. I think that's 15 more crucial. 16 MR. EBERSOLE: I want to find out where the hole
- 17 in the integral system is, if there is one, and I think the 18 operators should be sufficiently competent to be critical of 19 the information that they're furnished and not just be
.20 passively receptive to it, as so many operators, I'm afrald, 21 are.
22 MR. ETHERINGTON: In an oral walk-through 23 examination, does the examiner have a list of questions and 24 record the answers, or is it kind of a subjective appraisal? O c
\_) 25 DR. SHANKMAN: We're moving toward more having I I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Natenwide Coverage 800 336-6646 l
m 3210 02 11 26 1 examiners document what answers they would expect. l f)DAVbw v 2 Right now, I would say most examiners have a list 3 of questions in subject areas, and they will note -- we have 4 a form and they note whether the answers are satisfactory or 5 unsatisfactory, and if they're not satisfactory, they would 6 document exactly what was unsatisfactory about the answer. 7 DR. REMICK: They also have general areas of the 8 plant for systems that they should cover. There might be 9 nine listed there, and maybe they're expected to pick five. 10 They are kind of preselected areas of the plant systems with 11 some option given to the examiner, in general. 12 DR. SHANKMAN: Yes. 13 DR. REMICK: Susan, I had a question that didn't 14 come to me previously. 15 Would you put that Vugraph back up, but trying to 16 be consistent, we talk about knowledge skills or ability, 17 you just issued, I think you're going to tell us about a l 18 knowledge and ability skill log. 19 I'm curious why, in the revised, it doesn't say 20 something like requires applicant to demonstrate knowledge 21 of understanding of and the ability, and then you've kind of j 22 closed the cycle and tied it in with the knowledge and 23 ability. 24 Has anybody thought about that? 25 DR. SHANKMAN: I think -- let me look for the l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80433 H 646
3210 02 12 27 1 exact wording. {}DAVbw 2 On page 31 of the revised rule, what we say is , 3 that "The content would be identified apart from learning 4 objectives derived from a systematic analysis." 5 And we also say in the lead in that "The 6 operating test requires the applicant to demonstrate an 7 understa.ading of how he puts" -- 8 DR. REMICK: I was pointing out that some people 9 talked about knowledge, skills and ability. The question 10 comes to mind, are we talking about different things, or 11 aren't we? 12 This might be a good opportunity to tie in with 13 the fact that you're calling other things knowledge and 14 ability. 15 DR. SHANKMAN: One of the problems we run into, 16 in the written exam, we say that it will contain a 1 17 representative selection on the knowledge, skills and I 18 abilities needed to perform. We maintain the jargon, if you 19 will, of PSAs, but in the operating test, the oral test will 20 be based probably on the same catalog, the simulator exam, 21 the job sample, because of the integrated nature of it, will 22 not be explicitly based on those statements. 23 So it really will be a demonstration of the 24 ability to perform, and we will be basing it on scenarios D) (_ 25 and on the unexpected behaviors, and that's a slightly ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
s 3210 02 13 28 DAVbw 1 different way of coming at the same assessment of 2 competency, i 3 It's not that they're not parallel, but the 4 nuance is slightly different. 5 6 7 l 8 9 10 11 i 12 i 13 , 14 f 15 16 i 17 18 19 20 1 r 21 . 1 4 22 ' 23 ! 24 O 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3364646
3210 03 01 29 DAVbur 1 DR. REMICK: Are you telling me that in the 2 walk-through of the simulator that perhaps the word 3 " knowledge" is not as appropriate? 4 DR. SHANKMAN: I hope not because what we are 5 looking for is appropriate behaviors that demonstrate 6 competence. We infer competence, particularly in the 7 simulator in the all walk-through. It is closer to the 8 written exam because it is one on one and you get an 9 individual response to an individual question. 10 So you might in fact ask a question where you 11 probe cognition, but in the simulator you really infer 12 underlying knowledge from behavior. (O _j 13 MR. WARD: I would like to remind the committee 14 we have only 35 more minutes for this entire topic. 15 DR. MARK: Could I ask, Dave? 16 If I tried to think through the industry and 17 think of these somewhat subjectively assessed judgments, how 18 many people are there in the country at this time who 19 exercise those judgments? 10, 100? 20 MR. BOGER: 50 to 70. 21 DR. MARK: 50 to 70. So we have a small band of I 22 uncertainty as to how the judgments would apply if they 23 could be administered absolutely in some sense. 24 Thank you. ( 25 (Slide.) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4 646
3210 03 02 30 7~' 1 DR. SHANKMAN: In the new rule we are now 4 (_)DAVbur 2 requiring that there be an appropriate atmosphere in which 3 to have this job sample. We are calling it a simulation 4 facility. 5 What we are saying is that there needs to be some 6 collection of environments. Hopefully, one acceptable way 7 would be a simulation from a plant reference simulator that 8 meets the ANSI 3.5 standard. s 9 MR. REED: Could you clarify a little bit more 10 the word " acceptable" to the NRC? Could you describe a 11 facility that might be acceptable? How cockpit specific are 12 you thinking?
- ( 13 . DR. SHANKMAN
- .We can either defer that to the 14 description in 1.149 or Jerry can answer it now.
15 MR. WARD: Let's defer it. It is coming up. 16 Because we need to be a little more efficient with our 17 time. 18 (Slide.) 19 DR. SHANKMAN: We are saying acceptable. We are 20 assuming chat if it meets the guidance in the ANS standard 21 on simulation that we will accept that and all we will , 3 22 require of the facility is that they certify to us that it 23 meets those standards and we have the ability to audit that 2
.4. certification or the documentation of the certification.
() 25 We are also saying that there may be other ways ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
3210 03 03 31 7'3 DAVbur 1 to simulate the necessary environment so that we can conduct U 2 an operating test and get the information we need to decide 3 on the competency of the operator. 4 So we are allowing for another collection of 5 alternatives that we call simulation facilities, and they 6 can be part scope simulators in the control room and could 7 be -- well, there are alternatives. 8 If a facility chooses to go with an alternative 9 to the ANS standard, then they would tell us within a year 10 that they are going to do that, send an application to us 11 with documentation of how that would operate, and then we 12 would approve that. () 13 So either through certifying to us that it meets 14 the ANS standard or by applying for and receiving our 15 approval, they would have in place within four years a 16 simulation facility that would be acceptable to the NRC. 17 That is what we mean by acceptable. Either it is 18 certified to meet the ANS standard, as endorsed by the reg 19 guide, or it is approved by us through an application. 20 Either way, within four years they would have a simulation 21 facility, and if it wasn't in place we would stop giving 22 operating tests, and therefore they would stop having 23 replacement exams. 24 (Slide.) O) (_ 25 The other area in which we have proposed changes l l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646 l
e 3210 03 04 32 1 and received extensive comment, and I think maybe processed-(}DAVbur 2 more flexible, is in requalification, which I know you have 3 a whole segment on your agenda to discuss. 4 But let me just say, in the rule the idea is that 5 the program would be approved by the NRC. We would allow a 6 facility to propose a program to us that lasted a minimum of 7 12 months. It could be as great as two ye'ars in duration. 8 We would require that in that program there n be a 9 comprehensive biennial written examination based on learning. 10 objectives that were derived from job performance 11 requirements and that there be an annual operating test 12 similar to the operating test described in the rule.
- } 13 We would allow the content of that program to 14 either be derived from what used to be called Appendix A, or 15 is currently called Appendix A, and-has then been folded s
16 into the rule as 5559-C, and that is the lectures on 17 :.cific subjects.that you may be-familiar with. Or if the 18 facility has done a systematic evaluation of job performance
- 19 requirements and has used a systems approach to the
- 20 requalification program,.they could use that to derive the j 21 program content.
i i .22 We defined in the rule what we mean by systems 23 approach to training as being those five elements.that were t
- 24 part of the Commission policy statements. So we are
/~)%
\_
^ 25 consistent. l' l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. e i .._ . _ _ _ _ _ 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MI646 Q. . 39
3210 03 05 , 33 e s.
,1 MR; REED: .Somehow I don't see the bullet here
[V'gDAVbur -s 2 .g . that says "NRC-administered exam." OR. SHANKMAN: Because the requirement is for a 4 . requalification program that there be a comprehensive 5 biennial written exam and an annual operating test, and it 6 says in there they have to pass one that is administered by 7 - NRC and that in lieu of our examination we will accept one 8 given by the facility, and it allows then on those 9 facilities w'nsre we don't go in in our audits to let the 10 facility conduct the exam. 11 So the reason it doesn't say they have to pass an 12 NRC exam is because they don't. They have to pass an NRC O 13 ! exem or if we e11ow eeci11er exem. 14 MR. REED: I was sort of chuckling about that l- 15 because I remember in old 10 CFR 55 there used to be a 16 pro, vision for waiver going from one facility or another. 17 DR. SHANKMAN: That is still there. The waiver 18 is still in there, and I think we have granted waivers for
'_ 19 part of the-exam.
20 _ j LBruce, have we granted waivers so that somebody 21 doesn't have to retake an entire exam if they have been an 22 operator at another plant? 23 MR. BOGER: What we have done on occasion, a 24 depending on how recently the person has come into the O v 23 facility and^one person went to another facility, we may v_,= w N
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
/- 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 M46
i 3210 03 06 34 1 have waived portions of the exam based on that experience. (J'lDAVbur 2 But typically we always gave a walk-through j 3 exam. 4 DR. SHANKMAN: All right. 5 (Slide.) 6 We have also made a bunch of other changes,,none 7 of which is major, but collectively we would call them to 8 your attention. 9 We have streamlined the application proce s.# Too 10 much approval by the industry. 11 We have changed the license duration to sir.gyears 3 12 from two years. f% \_) 13 We have also changed the medical process, and 14 instead of having to send detailed information to us, we are 15 now asking that the facilities certify that their applicant 16 meets an industry standard of health. 17 Also, there has been much confusion in many 18 circumstances about the degree of participation in plant 19 operations that is required to maintain an active license, 20 and there have been phrases in the rule that speak to 21 actively and extensively engaged. 22 We also talked about actively performing the , 23 functions of an operator based on a great deal of public 24 comment to Reg Guide 1.8, where this was discussed, and the , fs k- 25 rule. We have clarified, I think, the issue of actively ) ,
\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
I I 3210 03 07 35 7m DAVbur 1 performing, and what we have said is we will agree that an U 2 operator has been actively performing the functions of an 3 operator if they are on three shifts per calendar quarter, 4 and we define a shift as being a minimum of eight hours. 5 And that is how we define " actively performing." 6 We have deleted the word " actively"'and " extensively" from 7 the requal progr'am because we have had a difficult time t 8 deciding how we would assess " actively" and " extensively" 9 engaged as an operator. 10 DR. REMICK: Susan, at the subcommittee we 11 pointed d t there were several places where you consistently 12 made modifications to clarify. (_m) 13 DR. SHANKMAN: Yes. We have red penciled that. i 14 DR. MOELLER: On medical certification, you say 15 theindustrysetsth$-st'andards,andtheyalsothencertify 16 whether their people meet their own standards? 17 DR. SHANKMAN: Yes, but n,ot through the ANS. It 18 is in the ANSI standard 3.4, when I said that they set their 19 own standard at their own plant. 20 DR. MOELLER: Is there within the rules that a b
. 21 medical exam must be done by a licensed physician, and so 22 forth?
23 i-DR. SHANKMAN: Yes. The other parts, we have 24 made very explicit that cheating is not tolerated by adding () 25 a phrase that h'as to do with the integrity of examination 5
> s ACE-FEDERAL REPbRTERS, INC.
,I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Codisse 800 336-6646
3210 03 08 36 ("TDAVbur 1 tests and that they cannot be compromised. ,
%J '
2 I don't think this was ever not part of the rule, 3 but to make it explicit we have added the words. 4 We have also asked that a licensee, in this case 5 the individual who holds an operating license or the 6 facility licensee, notify us if there is any permanent 7 change in the status of an operator. 8 That is why we have amended Part 50. It is just 9 a conforming amendment to this part of Part 55. If the 10 individual doesn't let us know that they have quit and left 11 a facility, we have asked the facility to let us know, and 12 that is really a counting of operators so we know that they s-) 13 have a sufficient number of staff. 14 Okay, do you have any other questions on the rule 15 itself? 16 (No response.) 17 MR. WARD: We had better move on. 18 DR. SHANKMAN: Just quickly, to implement the 19 medical part of the rule we have a Reg Guide 1.134, and 20 1.134 simply endorses the ANS Standard 3.4, 1983, and in 21 that standard are listed all those things. 22 Blood pressure -- 23 (Slide.) 24 -- color perception, eyesight, hearing, all the 25 other things that have been defined as representing the l l l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ! ll02-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage . 800-336 6646
3210 03 09 37
/'s,DAVbur 1 minimum standards for an operator at a nuclear facility.
(.) 2 MR. WARD: Susan, this really isn't any change? 3 DR. SHANKMAN: Well, yes, it is changed in the 4 date of the standard that we endorse. The only change in 5 that standard is more blood tests. 6 I shouldn't say "only." 7 MR. WARD: Maybe we should just ask if the 8 members have any questions on this, and if not, we can move 9 on to the next topic. 10 Any questions on this? 11 (No response.) 12 MR. WARD: Let's go on. Thank you, Susan. () 13 DR. SHANKMAN: Jerry is now going to talk to you 14 about 1.149, which has to do with the simulation facility. 15 MR. WACHTEL: Good morning. My name is Jerry 16 Wachtel. I am with the Operator Licensing Branch. 17 (Slide.) 18 Regulatory Guide 1.149 is titled " Nuclear Power 19 Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator License 20 Examinations." 21 The guide endorses the industry standard, ANS 22 3.5, dated 1985. 23 We take several exceptions to the standard in our 24 endorsement of it, and I will discuss those in just a () 25 minute. ( ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 (
3210 03 10 38 1 Obviously, as you can tell from the date, ANS 3.5 f~}DAVbur v 2 is a newly published document. It was officially released 3 just about a month ago. I think the date was October 25th. 4 Our existing version of Reg Guide 1.149 endorses 5 the 1981 version of ANS 3.5. I believe you should all have 6 a copy of the 1985 version of 3.5 as part of the handout 7 which you had this morning. 8 The guide provides a four-year phased-in 9 implementation, which is essentially a four-year grace 10 period. That is, you are safe with Part 55, with the rule 11 itself, and it will allow four years from the effective date 12 of the rule before any utility will be required to have a () 13 simulation facility accepted and in existence for the 14 conduct of operating tests. 15 In the guide we provide a comprehensive, specific 16 listing of abnormal and emergency events that will be tested 17 in order to verify that the simulator continues to perform 18 with a high degree of fidelity to the requisite plant. 19 Also, in the guide we provide guidelines for 20 those utilities, those facility licensees who intend to use 21 one simulator or one simulation facility for use at more 22 than one unit of a nuclear power plant. 23 These criteria, as I will describe to you in just 24 a minute, are essentially the same criteria as those that r~' (_)s 25 are already in place in our examiner standards for the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 03 11 39 DAVbur 1 issuance of multiple licenses to operators at multi-unit 2 plants. 3 (Slide.) 4 The major exceptions taken to the ANS 3.5 5 standard by the reg guide continue essentially unchanged 6 from the 1981 version of the standard and the earlier 7 version of the reg guide that is now in existence. 8 The first major exception is that whereas the 9 standard considers itself applicable to simulators as 10 training devices because our rulemaking and the associated 11 regulatory guide is in the operator licensing area, we 12 consider that the standard should not be in use for () 13 application to operating tests as well as for training. 14 The standard does not apply to part-task or 15 limited-scope simulators. ,It applies only to full-scope, 16 high fidelity plant reference simulators. 17 It is our intention in our rules and our reg 18 guides to apply to all simulation facilities, and we will 19 talk about that in a little bit. 20 That would include other devices, to the extent 21 that such other devices may be proposed by the utilities for 22 use in the partial conduct of operating tests. 23 The definition of " reference plant," in 24 accordance with our exception to the standard, is that () 25 " reference plant" applies right down to the unit level. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 03 12 40 1 This is because there are differences occasionally between ()DAVbur 2 units at a given plant, and it is important that a simulator 3 or simulation facility apply with reference to a particular 4 unit where the units are the same or very similar. This 5 would not be a problem. 6 Performance and operability tests that are 7 conducted on a periodic basis to ensure that the simulation 8 facility continues to remain faithful to the plant as the 9 plant undergoes changes should include all provisions of the 10 appendices to the standards. 11 There are two appendices to the 1985 version of 12 ANS 3.5. One deals with performance testing of the
,,)
(_ 13 simulator. The other deals with what is called operability 14 testing, which is essentially a periodic running of the 15 simulator's capability to demonstrate that it maintains 16 fidelity. 17 And essentially what we are doing is endorsing 18 those two appendices as part of the standard. 19 MR. REED: I must be of the Admiral Rickover i l 20 school a little bit or the Navy school a little bit. I am 21 not all that hepped up on the fact that there are such 22 things as simulators of high integrity to really what is 23 going to happen, or high fidelity, and you are using those i 24 words. I am not so sure that what we would call a (O _- 25 cockpit-specific simulator are really a necessity. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 03 13 41 DAVbur 1 Sometimes they tend to robotize operator actions rather than 2 to cause him to think if he has simulators that are less 3 cockpit specific. 4 Your tone bothers me, that you are beginning to 5 think that simulators in fact will have great integrity. 6 They only have the integrity that the designer put into 7 them, and I have the feeling this accident that Jesse was 8 just talking about at San Onofre, if you had had a 9 designer-created simulator it would have never shown that 10 such an accident would have happened, 11 And it is true that the B&W simulator would have 12 never shown that the Three Mile Island 2 accident would have () 13 happened. , 14 So I don't like to get carried away with 15 cockpit-specific simulators because they take away the 16 thinking process, and I hope that when this is all out in 17 front of the licensees that they are not going to have to 18 run around and just make everything cockpit specific because 19 you begin to lose the thought process right away. 20 MR. WACHTEL: The industry standard, with which I 21 am sure you are familiar, is really the reference document 22 that we are using as our guidance. I don't know that there 23 are any simulators in the nuclear industry that are cockpit 24 specific, to use your terms. () 25 In fact, there are many differences, obviously, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 03 14 42 DAVbur 1 between the reference plant and the reference aircraft, 2 which essentially prevent us from being able to develop 3 cockpit-specific simulators for nuclear power plants. 4 There is an awful lot of documented evidence that 5 the training that is conducted on simulators is at its most 6 effective when you go from the more general, more conceptual 7 to the more specific throughout the process of the training 8 program. 9 When you reach the end of training, the presence 10 of a high fidelity simulator has much more benefit than does 11 the inclusion of that kind of a simulator early in the 12 training program, where you are trying to develop conceptual 13 knowledge and understanding of how the plant works. 14 We are addressing simulators or simulation 15 facilities for what some consider to be the final step in 16 the training program, which is the examination of the 17 candidate, to understand what it is that he has learned and 18 gained from that training program. 19 Our job in conducting those exams is to have a 20 very high degree of assurance that a candidate on a 21 simulator exam who performs tasks adequately on that exam 22 will be able to go into a plant and perform the same tasks 23 if the same set of circumstances were to arise, and do it 24 adequately the first time. 25 There is, for example, a lot of evidence that for ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
3210 03 15 43 P' 1 exam conduct the higher the degree of fidelity in the , N~)sDAVbur 2 simulator, the more confidence you can have in the results 3 of that examination. 4 That is one reason why we are endorsing ANS 3.5. 5 MR. REED: I am sorry to hear you make this 6 statement. It sort of traps you, I think. 7 Are you telling me that simulators are for the 8 purpose of the examining operation or for the purpose of 9 safe operation of the power plant? 10 MR. WACHTEL: Simulators, as part of our 11 rulemaking, are for the conduct of the operating test. The 12 purpose of the operating test, as part of the larger () 13 examination, is for the assurance of the safe operation of 14 the plant. 15 The operating test is a means to assure that the 16 operators who are licensed are part of the contribution to 17 safe operation. 18 MR. REED: I have the feeling that if you take 19 the Davis-Besse incident recently or the San Onofre incident 20 recently and you train your operators to be examined on a 21 simulator and they perform the thing on the simulator, they 22 would have never gotten to a Davis-Besse but stayed in the 23 loft compartment and put the spare pump into operation. 24
) 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
l 44 V[^30 04 01 1 DAVbw 1 MR. WACHTEL: My understanding is that neither i 2 San Onofre or Davis-Besse has an ANS 3.5 type simulator at 3 present. 4 MR. REED: They are fortunate. 5 MR. BOGER: That's why we continue to do the 6 plant walk-through portion of the examination where we try 7 to be sure that operators do know how to reset an aux feed 8 pump. That's a typical walk-through type of question. We 9 recognize the simulator can't do everything, particularly 10 things that are local in the plant. That's why we keep that 11 part of the plant examination as part of our overall () 12 analysis, the plant walk-through and the simulator portion. 13 MR. WARD: Also, I maybe ought to remind you, as 14 I recall the description of the Davis-Besse incident, one of 15 the causative factors was the operator pushed the wrong 16 buttons and defeated the aux feed pumps. This was a rare 17 action which he had never performed before in the plant, and 18 it was something that was not simulated on the B&W simulator 19 which they had access to. 20 MR. REED: I'm not disagreeing that simulators 21 don't have a place, but I don't think they should be 22 cockpit-specific for the purposes of being an examining 23 tool. I think they should be a little more generic, and I ( 24 think they should leave the thought process in and the 25 resourcefulness and well-trained, carefully-selected i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6
3210 04 02 45 f]DAVbw 1 operators in the scene at Davis-Besse. That's what bails v 2 people out, balls out the situation. I don't like to see 3 overemphasis on simulators. I'm worried about another 4 thing, more of a social thing. This market thing of home 5 computers. It wouldn't surprise me someday if the IRS would 6 want to pass a law that everyone's got to have a home 7 computer to do his income tax. 8 MR. WARD: We're a little far afield. 9 (Laughter.) 10 MR. WACHTEL: Let me just comment. 11 MR. WARD: Don't comment on the last one. 12 (Laughter.) () 13 MR. WACHTEL: I'll do my best to avoid any 14 mention of the IRS, but we are not requiring plant-specific 15 or plant reference simulators. We are specifically looking 16 at alternative devices. The industry is moving in a major 17 fashion toward the acquisition of plant-reference 18 simulators, meeting the ANS 3.5 standard. And it is our 19 belief that should be the easiest, smoothest way to NRC 20 acceptance. Therefore, we've gone to the certification
; 21 program, but we will accept, as part of the rulemaking, and 22 our guidance, alternatives to plant-reference simulators, 23 including the use of concept trainers and even the plant 24 itself for the conduct of some safe portions of the
, ) 25 operating test. The difference is that when we do have ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 04 03 46 1 an ANS 3.5 standard to be able to use as a reference, if a {'}DAVbw v 2 utility comes to us and essentially says, we have a 3 simulator that meets that reference standard, we feel that 4 it is perfectly acceptable for us to endorse that approach 5 withoat any further effort on the utility's part. 6 That's the way we will go, but we will certainly 7 look at proposals for devices to be used as simulators that 8 are not cockpit referenced. 9 MR. WARD: One last question on this topic. 10 Dr. Mark. 11 DR. MARK: How many simulators are there, or do 12 you require, at Millstone? () 13 MR. WACHTEL: Millstone has, on their own, 14 without our requirement, purchased-one plant reference 15 simulator for every unit. There is a Millstone 1 and a 16 Millstone 2 and a Millstone 3 simulator. J 17 MR. WARD: As a matter of fact, at Millstone, 1 18 there are four simulators. They've also got one for 19 Connecticut Yankee. 20 MR. WACHTEL: The final item on this slide talks 21 about performance testing. We have established that 22 performance testing, in order to assure the fidelity of the
- 23 simulator, be conducted over a four-year cycle. There is a 24 listing of performance tests, and we are suggesting that
( 25 those be conducted 25 percent per year, so that all of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage R&336 664
3210 04 04 47 DAVbw 1 performance tests will be conducted over the four-year [ 2 period. The 25 percent per year guideline is essentially to 3 equalize the load for the simulator and for the training 4 staff and for the NRC Staff, when we come out to look at or 5 audit those simulation facilities. 6 (Slide.) 7 I mentioned earlier that we have a four-year 8 implementation phase-in of the simulation facility 9 requirements in the rule, and the Reg Guide follows along 2 10 with that four-year program. The terms that you see in 11 quotation marks on the slide are those terms that are 12 accepted terms in the industry and are used in the ANS () 13 3.5 standard. This four-year program, as I mentioned 14 earlier, provides essentially a grace period for all those 15 utilities to have an acceptable simulation facility in place 16 for the conduct of operating tests. This would cover those 4 17 simulation facilities that are already in existence that 18 might need to be upgraded to meet the new ANS 3.5 standard, j 19 but it would also apply to those utilities that at the 20 present time do not have a simulation facility of any kind 21 and place. 22 So there is a four-year period before we will 23 require that simulation facilities be used in the operating 24 tests. () 25 (Slide.) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
4 3210 04 05 48 1 Just to throw a few numbers at you, and you can ()DAVbw 2 look in the draft of Regulatory Guide. 1.149, which you 3 have, the performance testing requirement and the guidance 4 for that testing in the document show 21 abnormal events 5 that should be tested. Those generally cover BWRs and 6 PWRs. 7 When we get into the emergency events that ought 8 to be tested, there are 50 for PWRs and 35 for BWRs. All 9 simulators are developed with the ability to perform 10 transient malfunction testing. The ANS standard specifies a r 11 certain minimum number of malfunctions that need to be f 12 tested to ensure that the simulator works appropriately, but 13 the vast majority of simulators that have been procured or 14 are in the process of being developed today are being 15 developed with the capability of many, many more 16 malfunctions. Sometimes many hundreds of malfunctions. 17 It is necessary, in order to ensure the continued 18 fidelity of the simulator, to know that when a simulator is 19 put through a transient that its representation of that 20 transient follows the best estimates of the reference plan 21 against which it has been designed. The list of tests that 22 we have in the Regulatory Guide was developed by our 23 Licensing Examiner Staff, including our regional Staff and 24 represents a list that we feel will demonstrate continued l 25 simulator fidelity. l l
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33Ml646
~
3210 04 06 49
,/~3 DAVbw 1 (Slide.)
L) 2 Finally, I mentioned the provisions for those 3 utilities who want to use one simulation facility at more 4 than one unit of a multiunit plant. As I mentioned earlier, 5 this guidance is similar to guidance that is already in 6 place in our examiner standards. The logic is that if we 7 already consider the differences between several units of a 8 multiunit station to be similar enough that we're going to 9 grant dual licenses or multiple licenses to operators at 10 that station, it would seem to be rather unrealistic to I 11 require more than one simulator to be used for the multiple 12 units of that station. ( 13 As you can see, there are five major areas in 14 which, if someone does propose to use one simulator for 15 multiple units, these are the areas that we would want to 16 see a demonstration of to indicate that the differences 17 between the units and between the simulation facility are 18 small enough that we can have confidence that that 19 simulation facility represents both units. 20 Any questions? 21 DR. REMICK: One question. 22 Are there any areas that you were in direct 23 disagreement with the commenters on this Reg Guide? 24 MR. WACHTEL: We have, to the best of my
) 25 knowledge, satisfactorily resolved all comments. I think ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
3210 04 07 50 DAVbw 1 there are no open areas left. 2 MR. WARD: Thank you. 3 Mr. Persensky is next. 4 Jay, I'd appreciate it, if we could figure out 5 some way of going through this a little more quickly. 6 MR. PERSENSKY: I'll try to go through it as 7 quickly as possible. 8 (Slide.) 9 I think the main difference between what was 10 presented at the ACRS over a year ago and what went out for 11 public comment is that at time we had endorsed ANS 3.9-1981 12 for all the positions listed at this juncture, based on the i () 13 policy statement on training and qualifications. 14 We have elected to approve or to endorse ANS 15 3.1-1981 only for those licensed operator positions and to 16 remain with our endorsement of N 18.1-1971 for the positions 17 other than the licensed operators. 18 This also includes things like the requirements 19 for the guidance given in the policy statement on 20 engineering expertise on shift. 21 (Slide.) 1 22 The various aspects of this Reg Guide are, in 23 fact, really already incorporated in items like the March 24 28, 1980 letter and the 0737 and various Staff positions. () 25 So it's really just putting together things 1 l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
-- ++_y m=-- a,.~-e-m=
3210 04 08 51 1 that we're already doing for the licensed operator {}DAVbw 2 positions. 3 It indicates items such as our requirement that 4 we, the NRC, approve cold licensing training programs. 5 I think one of the major issues that has been 6 discussed for the last five years or so has been the 7 requirement for various educational levels. The ANS 3.1 8 requires 60 hours for the shift supervisor and 30 hours for 9 a senior operator. 10 We are taking exception to that, so that the only 11 educational requirement for those positions will be a high 12 school diploma. ( 13 Another difference from ANS 3.1 is that it calls 14 for three year's experience for a senior operator. 15 We are requiring four years. This is something 16 that is already required in 0737. Six months of the two 17 years required of nuclear power plant experience must be at 18 the specific power plant for which the individual is seeking 19 a license. 20 SRO applicants without a college degree will have 21 had to have held an operator's license for one year. Again, 22 this is an 0737 requirement. There was some question as to 23 the definition of manipulation of controls or significant 24 reactivity changes. That came up during public comment. We 25 tried to provide a better definition in this case, including ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 23M
. . _ __ _ , . "@3* _ _.
NdpWe Coyew - _,
3210 04 09 52 (~')DAVbw 1 a requirement that there be five changes, reactivity changes v 2 or power changes of 10 percent or greater. This is for the 3 hot license candidates. 4 It also indicates in support of the actively 5 performing concept that Susan mentioned in the rule that 6 those people that have not been actively performing, would 7 require some performance-based refresher training. This i 8 refresher training would include things like updates in 9 procedures, plant modifications. This aspect also requires 10 certification by the utility that the qualifications of the 11 individual are valid. 12 We provide some criteria in tis document for our 13 review of that certification, which includes thinge like 14 length of time in training, requalification status and 15 involvement in the plant. 16 So those are the general requirements that we put 17 into this Regulator} Guide for the licensed operator 18 positions. 19 DR. REMICK: I have a question. Maybe it's 20 covered in the next slide, but I don't think so. 21 In the case of the combined SRO and SPA -- 22 MR. PERSENSKY: It's covered in the next slide. 23 DR. MOELLER: In the second item, D, there must 24 be more to it, than my reading there, are you saying that p/ s- 25 one year of experience as an licensed operator is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
3210 04 10 53 Tm DAVbw 1 equivalent to a college degree in engineering? Q. 2 MR. PERSENSKY: No, we are not saying that. 3 What we're saying is that if you have a college 4 degree in engineering, there is a separate requirement, and 5 that is that you still have to have the two years 6 experience, nuclear power plant experience, but we give 7 credit for that degree towards the instant SRO. That's the 8 situation we've referred to in the past as instant SRO. For 9 the nondegree person, they would have to spend that year 10 actively as an operator. 11 (Slide.) 12 For those positions other than those requiring a () 13 license, we are endorsing ANSI 18.1-1971, which was endorsed 14 in 1971 by Reg Guide 1.8, which is the existing Reg Guide. 15 of course, the STA wasn't included in that particular 16 standard, so it's also covered here. 17 What we've indicated is that for all shifts an 18 STA must be required. In ANS 3.1, they indicate that a 19 shift supervisor with 60 hours of college education could 20 replace that STA, but we have to add also the provision that 21 if they meet the policy statement on engineering expertise 22 on shift, then they don't need the STA. So it's sort of a 23 combination of the two. That policy statement was i 24 promulgated in October, I believe. () 25 MR. REED: I'm trying to figure out where that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 04 11 54 1 1(b) and 2(a), where you say the STA is active, has an ('}DAVbw L 2 active role in shift activities, rules out what we call the 3 bunkhouse STA. 4 MR. PERSENSKY: As a Reg Guide, it does not rule 4 5 it out. In the policy statement that was promulgated 6 recently, the Commissioners made the statement that they 7 would prefer that even the separate STA become more actively 8 involved in shift activities and are trying to get the
, 9 industry to move away from the bunkhouse 24-hour STA.
10 MR. REED: So the bunkhouse STA is still 11 allowable or will be allowable? 12 MR. PERSENSKY: It is "till allowable, but by () 13 policy, the Commission is trying to encourage the industry 14 to move away from it. There's also a clarification with 15 regard to the educational requirement for the STA. 16 Again, it's not just the 60 hours, it's a 17 master's degree or the equivalent, as defined by the NRC. 18 There's also some specific training that's listed 19 in the Reg Guide. 20 DR. REMICK: I'm sorry. I didn't hear all that 21 you said, but that was the one -- this slide says " Positions 22 other than licensed operators." I don't know if you're 23 talking about S5As hero
- hat are not licensed, or is that 24 statement that you provide licenses.
j 25 I'm confused. l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3 % 6646
3210 04 12 55 1 MR. PERSENSKY: Okay. I tried to condense my
)DAVbw 2 slides. The STA could have been handled on a completely 3 different slide. An STA, a separate STA is not required to 4 hold a license. If you have a licensed individual that 5 meets the requirements of the policy statement, then they 6 can fulfill both the STA role and one of the SRO roles.
7 DR. REMICK: What's the educational requirement? 8 MR. PERSENSKY: The educational requirements for
~
9 that combined rule are a master's degree in engineering, a 10 professional engineer's license that was granted, based on 11 an examination. 12 DR. REMICK: It's different than this one then. () 13 MR. PERSENSKY: It's different than a separate 14 STA. 15 DR. REMICK: And what you have here is for the 16 separate STA; am I right? 17 MR. PERSENSKY: That's correct. 18 DR. REMICK: So you could have the equivalent, 19 which is more liberal than the combined; am I correct? I'm 20 trying to understand. 21 MR. PERSENSKY: That is correct. A separate STA, 22 an independent STA, the educational requirements are more 23 liberal than for the combined dual role STA-SRO. 24 i () 25 l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. j 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverase M336 6646
3210 05 01 56 1 MR. REED: I thought it was just the reverse, a O[~TDAVbur 2 separate STA, that educational requirements were a little 3 more stringent than for the combined because they are 4 options. 5 MR. PERENSKY: It is the other way around. 6 MR. WARD: This was a fairly recent Commission 7 policy statement, just about two months ago. 8 MR. REED: That is a recent change? 9 MR. WARD: Yes. 10 MR. PERENSKY: We did not modify the requirements 11 for the separate STA. The separate STA has always been a 12 Bachelor's Degree or equivalent. () 13 " Equivalent" has been defined to some extent to 14 meet the requirements of the INPO STA training program, 15 which is somewhere in the neighoornoud af 55 to 65 college 16 credit hours; whereas, for the dual role a degree is 17 required, or the PE based on an examination. 18 MR. WARD: Okay, let's go. 19 MR. PERENSKY: There is a carryover. This item 20 is a carryover from the 1985 reg guide for the radiation j 21 protection manager. 22 It provides some qualifications requirements. We 23 also indicate that the contractor personnel who fill 24 positions in the utility and replace utility personnel () 25 should be covered by the same qualification standards. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
3210 05 02 57
/~'s DAVbur 1 (Slide.)
V i 2 Finally, we have a one-year period for I 3 implementation of this, so that anyone for new license 4 facilities, they would have to meet these Reg Guide 1.8 5 standards for the qualifications and training of applicants, 6 for operator and senior operator licenses. Again, within 7 one year they should meet these requirements. 8 Since most of them aren't new, anyway -- in fact, 9 not any of them are new. They are all from 0737 -- this 10 shouldn't be a particular burden. 11 Finally, for the replacement personnel in 12 operating plants, this is one way of meeting the training () 13 and qualification standards for thosa positions that are 14 accredited, for those positions for which there is an 15 accredited training program. Accreditation is another way 16 of meeting the intent of the rule. 17 MR. WARD: Okay, thank you, Mr. Persensky. i 18 Our next speaker, Mr. Boger, will, I think, talk i 19 more about the relationship with industry initiatives. We 20 need to cut this as short as possible. 21 (Slide.) 22 MR. BOGER: As I indicated, we had considerable ) 23 public comments on this rule change, and we made quite an I. 24 effort to try and take into account the industry initiatives ( 25 in the area of operator licensing while still maintaining i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 3 4 4646
~_. . _- - --
3210 05 03 58 1 our regulatory requirements for licensing of operators. (])DAVbur 2 Some of the areas, either in this rulemaking or 3 in our operator licensing, exam development work, we have 4 done these things. 5 Particularly, as Jay was just indicating, we 6 intend to accept industry-accredited training programs just
; 7 as they are submitted to us. In particular, now the 8 INPO-accredited training program will be accepted as an 9 approved training program.
10 By the same token, as Susan indicated in the 11 revision of Part 55, we are accepting either the old 12 Appendix A of Part 55 way of evaluating or creating a ( 13 training requalification program, with a requalification 14 program that is based upon a systems approach to training. 15 This systems approach to training should bring the 16 requirements in requalification programs closer to the 17 actual job that the operator has to do on a yearly basis. 1 18 One of the other areas that we are going to 19 accept is if someone has successfully completed an 20 accredited or an NRC-approved training program, we will 21 accept that in and of itself as the eligibility requirement 22 to sit for an NRC examination. 23 Right now, Jay indicated that there are a lot of 24 eligibility and training requirements that have to do with f
' ss 25 three years or four years of responsible power plant . ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33H646
3210 05 04 59 T'gDAVbur 1 experience, one year as a reactor operator, three months on 2 shift as an extra person. 3 Basically, what we are accepting now is that if 4 an accredited training program is designed to ready someone 5 for the position of reactor operator or senior operator that 6 we will accept that as our basis for letting someone sit for 7 an NRC examination. 8 We have also -- one of the short-term fixes after 9 the TMI accident was to immediately upgrade the 10 qualifications of the instructors. At that time we felt it 11 was necessary to make sure that an instructor had 12 demonstrated his or her knowledge, at least at the SRO () 13 level. 14 So we were conducting examinations for 15 instructors in light of the accredited programs, instructor 16 qualification requirements that included knowledge and also 17 platform skills and instructional abilities. We are going 18 to get out of the instructor certification business, or the 19 special senior license for instructors, in light again of 1 20 the efforts by industry to develop a job task analysis to i 21 create performance-based training programs. 22 Our examination development activities are used 23 as the basis. The INPO JTA and our training sessions for 24 examiners include how to go from a facility's learning p/ s_ 25 objective into an NRC examination. In this way we hope that ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
v ~
+
t : 3210 05 05 60 - 1 our examination will reflect learning objectives of the ()DAVbur 2 facility and thereby reflect the job requirements. i 1 3 We also indicated that one area of concern was 4 whether someone has been actively and extensively engaged as 5 an operator or senior operator during their license period. 6 Since that was very difficult to interpret, we have decided 7 that if a f acility has an NRC-approved requal program, that 8 participation in that program should keep someone up to 9 speed. 10 So we will approve their license renewal based 11 upon facility certification that someone has completed the 12 requalification program. , . () 13 In addition, the last bullet talks about medical Y 1 14 standards and simulation facility capabilities. 15 In this area we have accepted the industry 16 consensus standards as the basis for our approval. 17 For instance, in the medical area, if'a facility 18 certifies to us that someone has met the medical eligibility 19 or that their simulation facility meets the ANS 3.5, then we , 20 will accept that up front rather than requiring an NRC 21 approval of either the simulation facility or the medical 22 eligibility. ,
\
23 So we have really tried to incorporate industry , 24 initiatives in this area, and this is what we-have come up () 25 with. l l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
s: Et s 3210 05 06 61 1 MR. WARD: Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Q(~N. DAVbur 2 Are there any general questions on the whole 3 topic? 4 DR. REMICK: While the staff is here, Dave, as I 5 indicated in the subcommittee, I am going to try to convince 6 the commihtee that we should put something in having to do 7 with what I think is useful in the current regulation, and 8 while the staff is here they might want to comment on that. 9 Just briefly for the full committee, the current 10 regulations have no requirement that a licensee should have 11 training programs for licensed personnel. 12 I think it is a void in the regulation. It is
- r~'
(_) 13 academic. Everybody has training programs. , 14 The regulations specifically say that three 15 months after you get an OL you must have the requalification 16 training. 17 I have always felt that was a void that at some 18 time probably should be corrected. It seems to me now that s 3 19 we are trying to modify 55 and the corresponding parts of 50 20 l ' that at least the Commission should be made aware of the 23 fact-that this void exists and that maybe now is an "l2 appropriate time to modify it. 23 'I don't see it as a big issue. I just see it as 24 tightening up the regulations so they make more sense.
, 25 /Tne one disadvantage I can see is that the 1
l
, - l
.s ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
i d i
.l 3210 05 07 62 1 Commission has told industry that for a two-year period we
(])DAVbur 2 are not going to promulgate further regulations. ; i I 3 What we are doing right now is an exceptio'n to 4 that because it was underway. They might choose not to do l 5 it. But I feel an obligation to at least try to alert the
) 6 Commission that your regulations don't require training i +
7 programs. 8 I don't think the staff is enthralled about that l 9 necessarily, but I thought perhaps while the staff is here, 10 if you wish, Bruce or Jay or somebody might want to react to i l 11 that. 12 MR. BOGER: I think you have accurately I 13 characterized the situation. Basically, all the plants do 14 have training programs. They require training programs as 15 part of the FSAR review and our standard review plan. 16 Part 55 indicates that an application will , 17 contain a number of course hours and information like that 3 18 that someone has had, and we recognized that the hole 19 exists, and also that we are in this bind, that we are not 20 going to promulgate any training rules at this time. 21 So I can only say that you have accurately , 22 represented what the situation is, and we are not working in
- 23 that area.
l 24 MR. WARD: Thank you very much, Bruce. 25 Let's take a break until 10:30. 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -
.. . . _ _ _ __-.---_ m e m ._
Nationwide Coverage . _ y3364646 _ _ ,_ _, _ _
b
! s 3210 05 08 63
.. s DAVbur 1 (Recess.) -
r2 t I 3 i 4 j 5 , i ~ 6 , t ., 7 e , i j
' ' ,8 .
L
! 9 i .
1
- 10
.i
'll i
- 12
) O 13 14 ,.. i 15 J-16 17 > 1 18
, 99 19 20 21 - >
22 e
- ?
23 0 ( 24 25 , ,, .' ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. , 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 l Uj. . _ . , - - - __ __ . . _ , _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _. ___ .. _ , _ .
. ____.,__ _ 334Hi646. , _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . , _ . . _ . _ , .
3210 06 01 64
- DAVbur 1 AFTERNOON SESSION (2:10 p.m.)
2 MR. WARD: We had better go on to our next topic, 3 then, which is the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1. 4 DR. SHEWMON: I thought we had four other items 5 here, but I am ready. 6 What I will read to you is a report, which is 7 under Item 7, under the pretty blue cover. 8 The subcommittee met at Millstone site November 9 16 -- I am sorry, November 18 and 19. 10 Dade Moeller and Mike Bender were in attendance 11 for the entire meeting. Dade Moeller came as soon as the g- 12 fog lifted in Augusta. 13 The regulatory process leading to this conversion 14 has been complex, and I would like to briefly sketch the 15 history. and acquaint the newer members with the various 16 programs and acronyms involved. 17 Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. I has a 18 BWR with a licensed normal thermal power of just over 2000 l 19 megawatts. The designed electric rating is 660 megawatts 20 electric. l l l 21 On behalf of the applicants, NNECO received a 22 construction permit for Millstone 1 in 1966 and a 23 provisional operating license in 1970. This makes it (g 24 post-Dresden 2 and pre-Monticello. (
\ ,)
25 Until 1971, the NRC gave all new plants POL for ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- _ 202-347-3700 Nationwide CsGT3 800-336-6646
3210 06 02 65
)DAVbur 1 a period of up to 18 months before issuing full-term 2 operating licenses. These were all to be converted long 3 ago, but as more generic items arose, the regulations 4 changed.
5 The Commission extended the POL to a group of 6 plants, among them Millstone 1, instead of granting POL 7 conversions. 8 The systematic evaluation program, SEP, was 9 started in the mid '70s to look at older plants, starting 10 with the 11 oldest, to see what needed to be done to bring 11 them closer into compliance with the then current 12 regulations. 13 Phase I began in 1977, identified 137 topics for 14 review. Phase II was a program to resolve the relevant 15 issues for the oldest plants, but the group of plants which 16 still had POLS were added into this at that time. 17 Generic issues in the subsequently defined USI 18 and TMI 2 action items were not included in the SEP list. 19 The results of the SEP reviews for the various 20 plants were issued in the form of integrated plant safety 21 assessment reports, IPSAR, for each plant between '82 and 22 '86. A list of the plants and the date of issuance of these 23 reports is included and should be attached under the same ; ,-S 24 folder. I \_) 25 The integrated assessment for Millstone 1 made i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 . Nationwide Coverage 800 33fWM46
3210 06 03 66 ( ) DAVbur 1 use of engineering judgment as well as the results of the 2 limited probabilistic risk assessment study; that is, that 3 which was part of the interim reliability evaluation 4 program, IREP, in evaluating the safety significance of the 5 identified differences of plant design through current 6l criteria and to decide whether modification was necessary 7 from an overall plant safety viewpoint. 8 The IPSARs also listed the issues associated with 9 each topic and the corrective actions and scheduled 10 completion dates agreed upon by the staff and the licensee 11 for those issues that regulred changes. 12 A series of IPSAR supplement reports are now 13 being completed which document the reviews completed under 14 the SEP program for those issues that require refined 15 engineering evaluation or the continuation of ongoing 16 evaluations subsequent to the issuance of the final IPSAR 17 and summarizes the status of all actions to be implemented 18 as a result of the SEP review. 19 A draft of the Millstone 1 IPSAR Supplement No. 1 20 is included. This is the pretty yellow thing that you 21 should have. 22 Remember that the SEP process did not include the 23 review of the TMI 2 action item. Resolution of these has _s 24 been separate and driven by staff schedule and (_) 25 plant-by-plant negotiation. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 06 04 67 ()DAVbur 1 The integrated safety assessment program, or 2 ISAP, is a pilot program to evaluate all pending licensing 3 actions after the " unresolved safety issues, high priority 4 generic issues, and utility plant improvements." 5 It is aimed at developing a means and a schedule 6 for resolving all remaining regulatory issuas. I" is a 7 program for which NNECO volunteered, and at this time it is 8 only being applied to two plants, Millstone and Haddam Neck, 9 both of which are managed by the same group. 10 It works on a plant-specific basis and has the 11 aim of seeing that the measures of the greatest safety 12 impact will be accomplished in the near term. O 13 It requires a deterministic review of all pending 14 licensing actions and safety issues, a plant-specific 15 probabilistic safety analysis, and an evaluation of plant 16 operating experience, reliability, and licensee 17 performance; for example, SALP evaluations. 18 The carrot for the licensee in the ISAP program 19 is that they get a chance to influence the priorities and 20 schedules. 21 At the completion of SEP, the NRC staff and 22 NNECO were in agreement on all corrective actions to be 23 implemented and the scheduled completions date. _ 24 NNECO has since proposed changes in a few of the
'~'
25 corrective actions and said they would like to address them ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 06 05 68 ()DAVbur 1 in ISAP along with reevaluation schedule completion dates. 2 Since Millstone 1 is the first POL /FTOL 3 conversion to be involved with the ISAP approach, you will 4 hear a description of the program today, some discussion of 5 these SEP items currently scheduled for reevaluation in 6 ISAP, and some discussion of ISAP-specific issues. 7 This is the second of the SEP plants to come in 8 for a POL /FTOL conversion, Ginna having been the first. The 9 ACRS letter on Ginna was dated April 9, 1984. The NRC Staff 10 plans to complete the remaining conversion reviews in 1986. 11 You should all have received a copy of the SER 12 related to the FTOL for Millstone 1, NUREG-1143. This is O 13 written in the format of an SER for a near-term plant and 14 summarizes the various topics treated and how they have been 15 resolved. 16 In addition to our subcommittee meeting, the 17 Safety Philosophy, Technology and Criteria Subcommittee and 18 the Reliability and Probability Assessment Subcommittee had 19 a joint meeting yesterday to hear more about PRA. We will 20 have a report on that meeting between now and 5:15. 21 The Millstone Subcommittee developed the belief 22 that the plant is being well run, that the licensee is 23 dedicated to running a safe, efficient plant, and that the 24 conversion should be approved. ( 25 The presentation today is aimed at showing you ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 06 06 69 A (_jDAVbur 1 some of the special aspects of the plant and the 2 organization that operates it. 3 Dave?- 4 DR. OKRENT: I had just as soon make a brief 5 report, Paul. 6 DR. SHEWMON: Fine. 7 DR. OKRENT: We had about a three-hour 8 subcommittee meeting, in which we were advised of the role 9 of the PRA or PSS in ISAP, its status and where it was 10 heading. 11 In brief, what the utility has done is, I guess, 12 what is called the Level 1 PRA. They chose not to use the p/ 13 existing IRAP as a strong base from which to make minor 14 changes but to begin sort of ab initio, and in fact arrived 15 at substantial differences in certain areas with what was in 16 the IREP, and it appears that they are doing a reasonably 17 good well, as well as one could tell at this stage. 18 They are going to do external initiators and 19 flooding, and so forth. That is not done yet. 20 The mean core melt frequencies that they have 21 estimated are not insignificant, and they themselves and the 22 staff are looking at possible changes that will reduce these 23 estimates. 24 It seems to me an acceptable approach from the O 25 ACRS point of view to have this process proceed. In fact, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 06 07 70 ()DAVbur 1 Millstone volunteered to do the PRA. It was not that they 2 were legally required. 3 And then when a more detailed PRA has been done, 4 a more detailed review has been done, and so forth, the ACRS 5 will be advised of the results of this and also what 6 changes, if any, are being proposed as a result of this, and 7 we will have an opportunity to offer comments. 8 My feeling is that the good attitude, if you 9 will, of the utility in examining their own plant this 10 way -- in fact, they plan to examine all their plants this 11 way is my understanding and to use this information both for 12 improving operations as well as the design -- leaves me 13 comfortable with just letting it progress naturally and not 14 mixing in at this stage. 15 I am assuming it is not going to be 10 years 16 before they are back, or eight years or some very long 17 number. 18 The only other comment I wish to make is a couple 19 of things were noted by Pete Davis, who is one of our 20 consultants who was present at the meeting. 21 One was that there is at issue an issue of 22 cross-connecting in a case that relates to power lines, but 23 there is a more broad issue of whether or not one should 24 cross-connect certain other types of lines when you have two l
/
25 or three units at a site, and I know I have seen PRAs for ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 06 08 71 (m q,)DAVbur 1 other plants where they say we would have an advantage if 2 the cross-connection were permitted, and so forth. 3 So it seems to me that this is an issue that 4 while I am sure the staff is thinking about it, and so 5 forth, the ACRS ought to of its own initiative begin to 6 look. 7 And I suggested to Savio that at least to start 8 the ball rolling we get one of our fellows to sort of 9 summarize the situation, and at that point probably one or 10 more subcommittees should pick up the ball. 11 Another point raised by Davis is that there 12 remains a disagreement concerning the optimum basis for 13 depressurization -- for calling depressurization 14 automatically of the primary system. 15 It seems to me that might be one the Electrical 16 Subcommittee would want to look at, but again I suggested to 17 Savio that we have a fellow on this write a smnmary on this 18 thing and distribute it to the members, and af ter that we 19 should somehow decide whether we want to follow it along. 20 The last point raised by Davis, which is not 21 exactly a new point, relates to the fact that the committee 22 is lacking what I would consider to be a reasonably good 23 technical evaluation of containment performance for Mark 24 I's. 25 If you have seen it, tell me where it is, because ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 06 09 72 ( DAVbur (~)% 1 I haven' t seen it. 2 I think we should pressure the staff to get us 3 what they have in this regard and also pressure the staff to 4 get this somewhat wrapped up, even if they want to mark it 5 " Draft." That is sort of sitting there, and in the meantime 6 people are talking about source terms and people are talking 7 about how there is some level of safety, et cetera, et 8 cetera. 9 Yet this not trivial block of behavior is not 10 sitting there in evaluated form to be critiqued, accepted, 11 or whatever. 12 So one way or another, I think -- I don' t know if 13 ' it takes a chairman's letter or whatever -- but I think in 14 the rather near future we should receive the benefit, at a 15 minimum, of a draft evaluation of what the staff thinks the 16 situation is. 17 It has nothing to do with what we do here. 18 DR. SHEWMON: Let me interrupt for a minute 19 more. 20 We do have a published evaluation of Mark II and 21 Mark III. 22 DR. OKRENT: Well, let me say there is more 23 available on the Mark III, partly via our GESSAR review, 24 partly from what Sandia itself has published, and the Mark O 25 III tends to look good, and maybe people were willing to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 646
3210 06 10 73 [v )DAVbur 1 put things out earlier, 2 There is always a skeptic on this idea. 3 The Mark II has been evaluated, however well, 4 maybe quite well. What is the one outside of Philadelphia? 5 Limerick. 6 I don't recall -- 7 DR. SHEWMON: " Evaluated" means that whoever did 8 the PRA went through that. 9 DR. OKRENT: The severe accident arc, right. 10 I haven't heard, although there may exist, deep 11 criticisms of what was done at Limerick, but I am quite sure 12 the Mark I is likely to show up the worst of the three. fm
\ 13 Maybe it is still okay.
14 DR. KERR: Dave, there has been a PRA on Browns 15 Ferry, hasn't there? 16 DR. OKRENT: Indeed. Well, there has been one on 17 Peach Bottom. 18 DR. KERR: There's also one on Browns Ferry, as I 19 have been told. 20 DR. SHEWMON: Well, let's go on. 21 Dade, from you? 22 DR. MOELLER: Not to delay, just a couple of 23 comments. 24 They are planning on hydrogen addition corrosion 25 control in a year or so. I was intrigued by the fact that
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 06 11 74 ()DAVbur 1 they do fast starts of their diesels. They had been doing 2 them once a week, and now they tell me once every two 3 weeks. 4 These are pre-lubed, but they, as I gather, never 5 had any problems. 6 And Dave Ward mentioned the four simulators at 7 their training facility. In my opinion, where we had the 8 subcommittee meeting, is superb. We spent time particularly 9 at several places where they have simulators. 10 One, as I recall, has not yet been installed, but 11 with the others, the one unit we saw, even the floor -- and 12 I was reading the ANSI standard, and so forth, that we were 13 covering this morning -- but where in the real room, that 14 portion of the floor that is above computer cables and is 15 sort of bouncy versus that portion of the floor that is on 16 concrete, that same setup is duplicated in the simulator, so 17 that you feel you are in the same place. 18 All the telephone numbers are the same as in the 19 plant, and if you called the machine shop, there is 20 background noise of lathes turning, and so forth, while you 21 talk. 22 DR. OKRENT: A radio playing. 23 (Laughter.) 24 (s) ss 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 07 01 75 c0 (_jDAVbw 1 DR. SHEWMON: Dave? 2 MR. WARD: I don't have any comments. 3 DR. SHEWMON: Thank you. 4 MR. EBERSOLE: A couple. Is there any general 5 observations on tracking with this whole plant? 6 DR. SHEWMON: It's been relatively good. They've 7 had some, but more recently they have tied it down, possibly 8 to the fact that they burned themselves on clear water 9 chemistry early on and have paid attention to it pretty 10 well, more recently. 11 That's a guess. You can certainly ask them about 12 it. It was gone over with them. O 13 DR. MOELLER: This was a $100 million turnkey 14 plant. 15 DR. SHEWMON: Gentlemen, after the last meeting, 16 there was some urging that we organize things 17 differently. This is different, there will be nothing. 18 While I'm not sure what Mr. Kacich will have, there will be 19 an absolute minimum on what vice president reports to 20 whom. There is nothing on the training program. There is 21 nothing planned on the QA program. If any of you have 22 questions on any of this, you're free to bring them up, but 23 they're not scheduled.
- 24 Yes.
%/ 25 DR. KERR: I was disappointed in the small number ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 07 02 76 e ()DAVbw 1 of transparencies that we're going to get to see. 2 ( Laughte r. ) 3 DR. SHEWMON: The applicant comes in lean and 4 mean too. You can see that's fewer people than we've had 5 here in a long time. 6 DR. KERR: Did Carl Michelson look at the 7 component cooling water system in this plant? 8 MR. MICHELSON: They don't have such. 9 DR. KERR: They don't have components. Good. 10 DR. SHEWMON: May we now proceed with the 11 Applicant. 12 Mr. Kacich. O 13 (Slide.) 14 MR. KACICH: I hope we can live up to our advance 15 billing here. 16 My name is Richard Kacich. I'm the Licensing 17 Supervisor for Northeast and the few handouts that we have, 18 I think, shall be distributed and available to everyone. 19 It's all in one package. 20 As Dr. Shewmon mentioned, we had a subcommittee 21 meeting at Millstone a little over two weeks ago. What we 22 tried to do is structure our presentations to reflect the 23 comments that we've received. I will admit we have a 24 minimum of organizatinn*1 information here, but we'll try to ('s
\
25 scheme through it quickly. We do have an FTOL that's ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
3210 07 03 77 1 pending here, but it's certainly a little bit different from ()DAVbw 2 a typical NTOL situation. We're talking about converting a 3 provisional license, and we have some 15 years of operating 4 experience behind us. 5 We think, in general, the operating record has 6 been favorable, particularly in the last four or five 7 years. Some of the material I'm going to present, and John 8 Stetz following me, will give the facility description and 9 point out why we think that's the case. 10 (Slide.) 11 Quickly, just to identify who's here from 12 Northeast, Mike Bain, who is an engineer in our Licensing 13 Group, is heavily involved in the SEP review for this plant, 14 and he'll be giving a brief talk about the application of 15 ISAP for Millstone 1. John Bickel, who is the supervisor of 16 our PRA section. He'll be giving a presentation on the 17 Millstone 1 probabilistic safety study. Myself, Mitchell 18 Lederman, who is an engineer in our Licensing Group and is 19 heavily involved in the ISAP application. Wayne Romberg, 20 who is currently the Millstone station superintendent, 21 previously, the Millstone Unit 1 superintendent. And John 22 Stetz, who is currently the Millstone 1 superintendent, will 23 be followig this talk. 24 (Slide.) O 25 Very quickly, on the organization. I think, not ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 600 336-6646
3210 07 04 78 (m)DAVbw 1 surprisingly, one of the key elements for success in any 2 organization is the people. 3 I just want to spend a couple of slides talking 4 about the people near the top of the house, and for those of 5 you who think back to the Millstone 3 ACRS presentation, 6 some of these slides may look a little familiar. 7 (Slide.) 8 Starting off with an excerpt from our corporate 9 mission statement, it states that: 10 " Northeast Utilities is dedicated to providing 11 safe, dependable and reasonably priced energy and 12 related services." {}
\ 13 As a corporate mission statement, it's broader 14 than just the nuclear area, but I'd emphasize that the first 15 term that we used to describe it is " safe." That's the 16 cornerstone of the entire operation.
17 DR. LEWIS: I never expected you to say the 18 opposite. 19 MR. KACICH: I'm just noting that we have a 20 mission statement in print, which so states. 21 (Slide.) 22 To get down one step more narrowly, on a nuclear 23 policy statement from our Nuclear Engineering and Operations 24 Group, it states that: O~' 25 " Northeast Utilities fully recognizes its ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
i l 3210 07 05 79 ' responsibilities and accountabilities to operate
)
('DAVbw 1 2 its nuclear plant safely, effectively, with a 3 minimum impact on the environment, the public 4 health and safety and the health and safety of 5 company personnel." 6 Again, the first descriptor that we use for how 7 we want to run the place is, safely. 8 I would also ask you to think back to this slide, 9 when Mike talks about the five attributes that we've 10 selected for evaluating proposed projects as part of the 11 ISAP process. 12 I think you'll see some important linkage between ("h kl 13 this nuclear policy statement and the attributes that we've 14 selected to evaluate projects. 15 (Slide.) 16 Starting at the top, the Chairman and Chief 17 Executive Officer is Bill Ellis. Reporting to him is Jim 18 Ferland, who used to be licensed on Millstone Unit 1 and 19 held various positions here, including the Operations 20 Supervisor, the Unit Superintendent and the Millstone 21 Station Superintendent. 22 Walt Fee is the Executive VP. 23 John Opeka reports to him. John was the first 24 man in charge of the entire nuclear operation of the
't 25 company. He was also an SRO, licensed at Millstone, when it ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 07 06 80 (,)DAVbw I was Millstone Unit 2, and also held a variety of positions 2 there, including the Station Superintendent job. 3 I've shown the three functional vice presidents 4 that report to him, and the only other items that I've 5 elected to show here are the two other direct reporting 6 paths that are available in the interest of safety, those 7 being the OA function and our four off-site and independent 8 nuclear review boards, one for each four nuclear units. 9 (Slide.) 10 Because we have two of our operations people 11 here, that's why I have this other slide. It just indicates 12 that's headed by Ed Mroczka, who's the VP of Nuclear 13 Operations. 14 Reporting to him is Wayne, who is here today. 15 He's the Superintendent of Millstone Station. Wayne has f 16 four people report to him: John Stetz, who is the Millstone 17 1 Superintendent, who's here, and the two other Unit 18 Superintendents. Their responsibilities are fairly 19 typical. They have their independent organizations on 20 ope: rations , engineering, maintenance, and so forth. 21 And the other spot is occupied by Jim Kelley, who 22 is the Station Services Superintendent. He has the site 23 functions of OA, health physics, security, chemistry, those
, 24 sorts of things.
~
25 MR. MICHELSON: Before you have the previous ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 33 6 6646
3210 07 07 81 !
/"%
(,)DAVbw 1 slide, do you have any outside members on your Nuclear 2 Review Board? 3 MR. KACICH: Currently they're all company 4 personnel. A number of years ago, we had some outside 5 parties, but we do not any longer. 6 MR. MICHELSON: You no longer have any outside 7 board members; is that right? 8 MR. KACICH: That's correct. 9 MR. REED: You passed up one slide -- on the 10 staff. 11 (Slide.) 12 MR. REED: Those numbers, of course, the overall (~)
~
13 total seems to be awfully high in overall total staff for 14 all these plants except one or two. I just can' t figure out 15 , that craft number. 50 craft workers? And all those other 16 numbers in the hundreds? 17 MR. KACICH: Your question is that the number 18 overall seemed high? 19 MR. REED: The craft seems very much out of 20 relationship to the other high numbers. i 21 MR. KACICH: What this reflects is Northeast 22 Utilities employees. The fact that the craft number is low 23 means that a higher percentage of the craft population that 24 we use are not in new employees as contrasted with the other I)
'~
25 positions that we've shown on the slide. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 646
3210 07 08 82 ()DAVbw 1 MR. REED: Are you saying that for these three 2 units you have only 50 craft people in maintenance, 3 mechanical and I&C maintenance. 4 MR. KACICH: That's not what this is showing. 5 MR. REED: I don't understand the 50. What is it 6 showing? Where are the workers to balance out all these 7 professionals and technicals and operators and so forth? 8 DR. REMICK: Do you use subcontractors to supply 9 crafts? 10 MR. KACICH: Yes, for craft people, we do. 11 DR. SHEWMON: The numbers you have there are for 12 Units 1, 2 and 3? O 13 MR. KACICH:. And Hademneck, as well. This is our 14 Nuclear Engineering Operations Group. 15 There's degreed individuals who serve in some of 16 the positions. 17 MR. REED: You mean you've got all thumbs degreed 18 individuals like the man with the thing there for mechanical 19 maintenance?
- 20 (Laughter.)
21 One other question. For craft and operators do 22 you use aptitude selection testing? , 23 MP- KACICH: Do you know, Wayne? I don't. 24 MR. ROMBERG: Repeat the cuestion, please. O 25 MR. REED: For key craft workers, reactor workera ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 07 09 83 rm (_)DAVbw 1 and SROs, do you use aptitude selection testing, such as the 2 EEI POS tests or math tests? 3 MR. ROMBERG: Wayne Romberg, Northeast 4 Utilities. 5 We started to do that, but we hadn't in the 6 past. We are uniquely located next to a submarine base at 7 New London and most of our operating personnel, we use 8 ex-Navy nuclear personnel and have found that very 9 successful in the craft area. Some are ex-Navy nuclear 10 personnel, mechanics, electricians. Also, in certain areas, 11 we use local workers who are actually there, who built the 12 plant, who did outages and who worked out particul'arly ( - 13 well on the part of our staff. 14 That's how we man the plant. We recognize the 15 value of those tests, and we're looking at them, but 16 historically, we have not done that. 17 MR. REED: Maybe you can answer one other 18 question. Way back years ago, what became Northeast 19 Utilities was Connecticut Power & Light, and it pioneered 20 aptitude selection testing, and then it stopped it. 21 Now you're saying you're thinking of going back 22 to it? 23 MR. ROMBERG: We're looking at it. From a 24 staffing position we're looking at it. Just from an open
%)
25 mind perspective, we also had a quench after TMI. From a ) l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646 l
3210 07 10 84 1 hiring perspective, there were not an abundance of people
-()DAVbw 2 available of the quality we were looking for, and as a 3 result of that, we took some people directly out of high 4 school and put them through a local community college, 5 in-house training program, and for those kind of selections, 6 you need something like a POS test. Otherwise, at the 7 Millstone site, you'd normally rely on the Rickover 8 selection program and try to get the cream of what was 9 leaving the Navy.
10 MR. REED: That leaves me still with that 11 concern. Your talking about, I think you said four units, 12 and you've got 50 craft workers. That's 12-1/2 per unit of 13 your own, and then,you're bringing in -- 14 DR. SHEWMON: Two per shift. That's pretty 15 good. 16 MR. ROMBERG: There's something wrong with that 17 50 number. Typically, each department has around 60 18 people. Instrumentation and Control has about 20 people. 19 The Maintenance Department in Unit 1, I believe, is 49 20 people. Those are in-house people. I'm not sure what 21 happened to that 50 craft number. I probably should have 22 caught that earlier. 23 MR. REED: You're beginning to understand what 24 I'm talking about. If you're going to have that through 25 craf t workers, I'd worry about security of the equipment ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 07 11 85 ()DAVbw I and potential sabotage and all kinds of things. 2 MR. ROMBERG: What we do is, on a maintenance 3 staff -- this is mechanical maintenance, electrical 4 maintenance, about 50 people. That's the Unit 1 staff. We 5 have a comparable staff in Unit 1 and a little bit larger 6 staff in Unit 3 of mechanical maintenance and electrical 7 maintenance personnel. That's in addition to the 20 8 instrumentation and control people that we have in each of 9 Units 1 and 2. 10 In Unit 3, we've got 36. 11 MR. REED: Could we get a corrected slide on 12 that? 13 DR. SHEWMON: Can you send us a piece of paper? 14 MR. ROMBERG: Sure. 15 MR. WYLIE: It might be more appropriate to have 16 one just for Millstone. 17 MR. KACICH: We'll give it to you for both. 18 DR. SHEWMON: Fine. Let's go on. 19 (Slide.) . 20 MR. KACICH: Dr. Shewmon mentioned previously the 21 commitment to the four plant-specific simulators that we 22 have, which, at the time today represent a major commitment 23 to assuring operational nuclear safety. You can see the 24 four units, and they were all ordered in July of 1982. Two O 25 of them, Millstone 3 and Millstone 2,-became operational l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ! 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 07 12 86 1 earlier this year. The remaining two, Millstone 1 and Conn ()DAVbw 2 Yankee, a plant to be operational in the first guarter of 3 next year. 4 The total cost for the simulators and the 5 building they're housed in is roughly $54 million. 6 MR. EBERSOLE: Millstone 1 is a boiler. What 7 are the others? 8 MR. KACICH: Millstone 2 is a CEPWR. Millstone 3 9 is a Westinghouse PWR and Conn Yankee is a Westinghouse 10 PWR. 11 MR. EBERSOLE: So you've got a variety. 12 MR. REED: 3 to 1, Jesse. PWRs. (~) (_/ 13 (Laughter.)
- 14 DR. SHEWMON: Onward.
15 (Slide.) 16 MR. KACICH: This is a picture of the simulator 17 facility, where we had the subcommittee meeting. It's 18 located on site near the emergency operations facility, 19 about a mile from the reactors proper. 20 (Slide.) 21 This picture happens to be of the Milestone 3 22 simulator. Although if we did as good as we claim, it 23 should look mighty similar to the Millstone 3 control room. 24 (Slide.) C)
\s - 25 And one other schematic of the Millstone 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 07 13 . 87 rm l 1 simulator and how it will look. The way the building is (JDAVbw 2 laid out, the simulators are located in the four quarters of 3 the building. 4 This one should be ready to go in a couple of 5 months. 6 MR. EBERSOLE: Do the operators roll around from 7 unit to unit? 8 MR. KACICH: No, they don't. It's getting harder 9 and harder to keep a license on the ones that they are. 10 (Slide.) 11 One other general topic I wanted to cover 12 concerns our commitment to PRAs and what we believe to be a
~\
(~J ( 13 somewhat unique capability in this area. 14 As I suggested to the subcommittee chairman, 15 we've got a couple of slides on that subject. 16 (Slide.) 17 First of all, it talks about why NU is pursuing a 18 living PRA program. By "living," we're talking about, 19 number one, keeping it up to date and number two, being able 20l to use it on a day-to-day basis for the performance of 21 engineering and evaluation functions. 22 We believe that the in-house PRA capability will 23 improve our ability to safety manage our plants. Again, 24 emphasize on the word " safe." We think it's an evaluation O- 25 tool which will help us render judgments on the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 07 14 88 , 1 1 appropriateness or necessity of proposed cnanges, whether ()DAVbw 2 they come from within the company or outside. 3 DR. KERR: If I went into a control room and 4 asked an operator what a PRA is, would he know? 5 MR. KACICH: Yes, he would. 6 If you go back several years, it would be 7 different than it is today, in the degree to which it's 8 being accepted and recognized within the company, is 9 increasing by virtue of some of the positive things that it 10 has contributed to, design changes and other aspsets of 'i 11 operation.
, l 12 DR. KERR: Thank you.
3 s-) 13 MR. EBERSOLE: You seem to be so close knit that 14 you could pretty well understand you might have af 4 .
;\
15 competitive availability contest running all the time. 16 Do you have such?
" I 17 MR. KACICH: I would say, yes. When Millstone 1 18 was approaching the record of Conn Yankee en consecutive
~'
19 days on line, I saw evidence of interest in beating the 20 other plant, so to speak. , I i 21 Wayne, would you like to add to that? . i I 22 (Laughter.) 23 \ 24 ' ' 25 - g
~
51 , c ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. u 202 347-3700 Nationwide C;verage 800-336-66M
J 3210 08 01 89
)
('DAVbur l' . MR. ROMBERG: Two things. I2 Unit 2 bought tie jackets for Unit 1 on the deal c 3 that Unit I would buy the Jackets for Unit 2, and they broke 4 that record. But we had a line outage that summer due to w C c(. 5 weather phenomena, and Unit 2 volunteered to go upline to e .v 6 see that Unit 1 could stay on. 7 MR. EBERSOLE: That is cooperation. 8 . (Slide.)
"" O 9 MR. KACICH: We have a corporate objective of 10 developing and maintaining living PRA models for all of our V^ :
'V 11 unita. I have listed three specific applications here.
12 One is the conduct of safety evaluations for O 13 plant design. changes. Another is the conduct of safety 14 evaluations for tech spec changes or license amendments. 15 Lastly, it has a very important element of our 4 16 integrated safety assessment program that Mike Bain and John
.7 s 17 Bickel will be elaborating on later this afternon.
18 (Slide.) 19 We had an in-house task force that was formed in 20 1981 which recognized the potential value of this tool.
\
,,,, {$ 21 Plans were put in place at that time to capitalize on the P
22 benefits which could be realized. 23 Specifically, the capability of performing, 24 maint.aining, and utilizing PRA was developed during 1982 and O
\/ 25 '83 by performing with Westinghouse the Millstone 3 4
N s;
- s. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M646 a m, _
3210 08 02 90 1 probabilistic safety study. That was the first l ()DAVbur 2 plant-specific study that was managed by Northeast 3 Utilities. 4 In '84, a corporate goal was established and 5 committed to the in-house performance, maintenance, and 6 utilization of PRAs in support of engineering and 7 operations. Here the objective was to incorporate the PRA 8 in doing business on a day-to-day basis. 9 (Slide.) 10 We have got two slides which go over some reasons 11 why PRA is significant to NU. 12 First, we think it provides a verification tool 13 for plant deterministic design objectives. It certainly 14 doesn't replace them, but we believe it complements them. 15 PRA itself developed an engineering staff that is 16 highly conversant with plant safety objectives and 17 performance, and we believe that the integrated systematic 18 . review that is conducted via PRA gives one a big picture to 19 look at the plant that is hard to get some other way. 20 PRA develops a dynamic plant model capable of 21 describing integrated system performance and is credible-to 22 the operating staff, which draws on the point you mentioned , 23 earlier. 24 PRA has been the tool that has been used to 25 identify the need for some important changes. I am talking l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. , 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33(H5646 l
4 3210 08 03 91
/~ 1 about limited scope PRAs as well as the full-blown,
(_)/ DAVbur , l 2 plant-specific PRA. And I think with the passage of time 3 'that it has helped to promote acceptance within the s 4 organization. 5 > (Slide.) 6 Four more elements on this slide. 7 I.think that PRA represents a valuable 8 engineering tool for identifying risk contributors, for i' 9 ' supporting de'cisions with regard to safety, and for 10' evaluating the plants against the NU safety goals. 11 We have a safety goal policy statement. It is 12 certainly impossible to implement it unless you have a 13- , plant-specific PRA. l 14 PRA provides quantitative assessments in support 15 of qualitative engineering judgment. Again, we are not
, i 16 saying that we are putting all our eggs in the PRA basket, 17 but we th, ink it helps the organization as a whole to render i 18 the appropriate judgment on what should be done and on what 3
19 schedule. 20 PRA facilitates the evaluation of the relative
'21 importance to safety of plant features and risk outliers.
+
122 And,, lastly, PRA provides an engineering tool for 23 eva,1uating alternative implementation strategies for a given 24 design change. O) k- >
' 25 Here, we.are talking about a case where we might
! ~ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 'I _
3210 08 04 92 I' 1 have the design conceived elsewhere in the NU organization
\v) DAVbur 2 that might get fine-tuned or finalized once it has been 3 looked at via the PRA application.
4 DR. REMICK: Briefly, tell us what the NU safety 5 goals are, d 6 MR. KACICH: It is very similar to the ones 7 proposed by the AIF in the draft policy statement. The core 8 melt magic number, if you will, is 1 times 10 to the minus 9 4. 10 DR. REMICK: Is it also risk-related? 11 MR. KACICH: Yes. 12 MR. EBERSOLE: Has the presence of your shutdown 13 condenser, which is a valuable thing, pretty much negated 14 the potential value of direct venting of the containment? 15 MR. KACICH: John, can you help me with that? 16 DR. BICKEL: John Bickel, Northeast Utilities. 17 We do take credit for venting the containment in 18 certain areas, but it is with the benefits of the isolation 19 condenser. 20 MR. EBERSOLE: It is not worth as much? 21 DR. BICKEL: It is not worth as much as you might 22 have on other Mark I plants. 23 MR. EBERSOLE: Will we be getting some numbers on ! 24 this? i j (>D 25 DR. BICKEL: No. I don't have exact numbers. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
t 3210 08 05 93 MR. EBERSOLE: I think we would be interested in ()DAVbur 1 i 2 the value of those two unusual features. 3 MR. MICHELSON: Is your venting capability 4 designed -- for instance, are the valves designed to open 5 under two to three times design pressure? 6 MR. ROMBERG: Wayne Romberg, Northeast 7 Utilities. 8 When you are at those kind of pressures, we have 9 big valves and little valves. We have used the little
! 10 valves, 11 MR. MICHELSON: How little?
i I 12 MR. ROMBERG: Two-inch. 13 MR. MICHELSON: And you can vent fast enough in 14 these circumstances with the two-inch valve? 15 MR. ROMBERG: I really can't demonstrate whether 16 they are fast enough. Those valves operate at those 17 pressures. l 18 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. I don't doubt that. 19 DR. SHEWMON: Onward. 20 (Slide.) i 21 MR. KACICH: We have listed some examples of 22 limited scope PRA studies that have been conducted within 23 the organization during the past several years. 24 We did limit it to decay heat removal studies-for 25 both Millstone 1 and Connecticut Yankee in the late '70, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide coverage 800336464
l 3210 08 06 94 1 early '80 timeframe. We had some fire protection, or ()DAVbur 2 Appendix R, studies done for all three of the operating 3 units in 1981 and '82. 4 For CY and Millstone 2, we had some PRA studies 5 performed on the heavy loads issue, and in 1983 on Millstone 6 3 the boron dilution issue was studied via PRA 7 specifically. 8 MR. EBERSOLE: Did you have to do extensive 9 changes as a result of the Appendix R studies? 10 MR. KACICH: Actually, those studies were used to 11 try to minimize the number of modifications that Appendix R 12 would require us to make. I believe a representative number 13 for Appendix R costs averaged over the three operating units 14 is in the range of 8- to $10 million. s 15 MR. MICHELSON: On your heavy load study, wnat ] 16 did you use for a data base? 17 DR. BICKEL: John Bickel, Northeast Utilities. 18 We utilized crane data which came from the Navy, i 19 the Aircraft Industries Association. It was based on cranes 20 of various sizes and frequencies of breaking or failures of 21 lifting hoist devices. , 22 MR. MICHELSON: Do you think they were 23 comparable? 24 DR. BICKEL: Yes. 25 MR. MICHELSON: You are aware of the St. Lucie ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
i 3210 08 07 95 1 situation of course? (])DAVbur 2 DR. BICKEL: Which one? 3 MR. MICHELSON: The one wherein the support 4 structure, the three-point support was lost; they were down 5 to two-point support because there was tearing in one of the 6 eyes. 7 DR. BICKEL: I am not familiar with that 8 particular one. 9 MR. MICHELSON: Your gentleman behind you shakes 10 his head "yes." 11 I was going to ask how does it compare with your 12 studies. You must have had comparable lifting devices. 13 DR. BICKEL: The type of thing we looked at in 14 those studies was we looked at the type of operations that 15 we did, the type of loads we were looking at. 16 And as an example, one of the key finds that came 17 out of that on Connecticut Yankee, we had a practice of 18 long-line maintenance on reactor coolant pumps. We dropped 19 the power of the plant and looked them over and hoisted to 20 an area that we had worked on while the plant was 21 operating. 22 We concluded, based on the fact that we were 23 doing it f requently, that the challenge f requently was 24 unacceptably high. ' ~ 25 We have since essentially forbidden that within 1 i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 08 08 96 1 that plant. They have altered the maintenance programs and ()DAVbur 2 procedures. They have never had to do it again since there 3 was a refocusing of how we. chose to do that. 4 That was an example of the type of thing we came 5 out with on the heavy loads problem. 6 MR. EBERSOLE: The heavy loads problem breaks 7 down into two areas, which is -- one of them is you don't 8 carry heavy loads over dangerous places, and the other is if ! 9 you do, you never do drop them. 10 Where do you stand on that, in view of the fact 11 GE never did pay particularly a lot of attention to it in 12 the years you built those plants? You don't drop them? 13 DR. BICKEL: We have, of course, within the 14 history of our units had various flaws and failures. We 15 have had nothing like a heavy load drop that did anything 16 like that type of damage. 17 MR. EBERSOLE: Have you looked at coincident 18 failure of the gear drives in the break? 19 DR. SHEWMON: Jesse, that is the last question. 20 Come on, let's get back. 21 DR. BICKEL: Yes. 22 (Slide.) 23 MR. KACICH: It has been mentioned several times 24 already that we have either completed, in progress, or ' k ') 25 planned plant-specific PRAs for all four of our nuclear i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 08 09 97 1 units. ()DAVbur 2 This shows the schedule for doing that, Millstone 3 3 being finished in 1983, Millstone 1 being finished and 4 submitted earlier this year, Connecticut Yankee on the verge 5 of finishing up and planned to be submitted not later than 6 March of next year -- those two units, Millstone 1 and CY, 7 again being an integral part of our ISAP effort. Then 8 Millstone 2 was not as firm a schedule, but we are currently 9 planning to do it in this '87 '88 timeframe. 10 I might also add that a lot of effort is going to 11 be involved in maintaining them current as time goes on. 12 (Slide.) f) s/ 13 I have just one last slide on some of the 14 significant PRA milestones for NU, and I might add that the 15 time lag is a little bit off in a couple of places. The TMI 16 accident was not in 1978, but the trend is still 17 illustrated. 18 I note on the lefthand side, you can see it -- 19 perhaps you can't see it -- but the hurricane Belle struck 20 Millstone in August of '76, which was one of the triggers 21 for the conduct of the limited decay heat removal study 22 which I mentioned earlier. 23 You can see that starting about in the middle of 24 '78 or so we had undertaken some additional limited scope 25 PRA studies in the use of evaluating design changes or tech ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
3210 08 10 98 1 spec changes. That is basically ongoing. {}DAVbur 2 You see a lot of activity clustered around the 3 1981 timeframe, including the conduct of the Millstone 1 4 IREP, the formation of an internal task force on PRA, and 5 you have the formation of a dedicated section within the 6 company on PRA, and then publication of the safety goal 7 policy statement I mentioned earlier. , 8 In '82 and '83, it represents the conduct of t~ j 9 Millstone 3 Level 3 probabilistic safety study. 10 And then highlighted in yellow an the upper right 11 side is the ISAP program and the two PRAs, Level 1 PRAs that 12 are just about wrapped up for Millstone 1 and Conn Yankee. () 13 Then the timeframe is a little off, but on the upper right 14 there is the plan for Millstone 2, the probabilistic safety 15 study, and then the effort of keeping them current and using 16 them on a day-to-day basis. 17 DR. KERR: I would have sworn the TMI accident 18 happened in 1979. 19 MR. KACICH: Yes. I apologize. There's that 20 error and a couple of other ones that don't really match up 21 on the time line. 22 That concludes my presentation. 23 DR. SHEWetON:- Thank you. 24 MR. KACICH: I would like to introduce John 25 Stetz, who will cover the facility description. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 08 11 99 l') DAVbur 1 MR. STETZ: Good afternoon. My name is John V 2 Stetz. I am the Millstone Unit 1 superintendent. 3 (Slide.) 4 This afternoon I will be discussing four items. 5 I will be talking about plant features, some of the features 6 that make Millstone unique. I will be talking about some of 7 the decay heat removal methods and how we use them at the 8 plant. 9 I will give some operating history of the plant, 10 and I will talk about selected modifications since the 11 provisional operating license. 12 (Slide.) 13 This is an outline of the Millstone Unit 1 14 facility. It is comprised of basically two buildings. 15 The secondary containment building is located 16 here, and it houses our primary containment. Inside of that 17 we have our reactor. Also, inside the secondary containment 18 we have the isolation condenser. We have our core spray 19 pumps, and we have our HPSI pumps. 20 The other major section, the other major building 21 is the turbine building, where the turbine is located, the 22 condenser, and all the turbine auxiliaries, the feedwater 23 heaters, and such. 24 Located outside the plant, we have a charcoal 25 removal system for the '.C f-gas system and our 375-foot ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 3210 08 12 100 1 stack. ( )DAVbur 2 MR. MICHELSON: What kind of high pressure makeup 3 do you have for the plant? 4 MR. STETZ: I will get into that in a little 5 bit. 6 MR. MICHELSON: Thank you. 7 (Slide.) 8 MR. STETZ: Millstone 1 is a BWR-3. It is among 9 nine that General Electric designed, the others being 10 Dresden, Quad Cities, Pilgrim, Monticello, Nuclanor, and 11 Fukushima 1. 12 It was designed at 2000 megawatts and a nominal 13 680 megawatts gross output. 14 We have a Mark I pressure suppression 15 containment. We were built by.Ebasco, as was Vermont 16 Yankee. 17 We have two loops, two main recire loops, 10 jet l' 18 pumps on each. That distinguishes us from the earlier 19 vintage BWR-2's, which did not have jet pumpe. 20 Our feedwater system is comprised of three H21 condensate pumps, three booster pumps, and three feedwater i 22 pumps, and we are safety grade, also. 23 I will talk a little bit more about them later. l 24 Our cooling system is one through from Long 25 Island Sound. Onsite emergency power systems. We have a ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 08 13 101 diesel generator made by Fairbanks-Morse that has given us ()DAVbur 1 2 every good service. It is rated at 2.6 megawatts.
; 3 And we have a gas turbine generator manufactured 4 by General Electric. That is rated at 11.5 megawatts.
5 MR. MICHELSON: Is the. gas turbine safety 6 related? 7 MR. STETZ: Yes, it is. 8 MR. MICHELSON: It is all safety grade system, 9 then, both gas turbine and diesel? 10 MR. STETZ: Yes, they are. 11 MR. MICHELSON: How fast is the gas turbine? 4 12 MR. STETZ: We have a technical specification l 13 that limits us to a 48 seconds or less prior to closure. 14 MR. REED: What has the reliability been on the 15 gas turbine? 16 MR. STETZ: I believe John will speak about that 17 a little bit later, but it is as good as the WASH-1400 18 diesels or better, a little bit better. 19 MR. MICHELSON: I assume all'the conventional 20 torus modifications have been made in this plant? l 21 MR. STETZ: Yes, they have. 22 A word about our gas turbine is that it may not 23 be as reliable as we would like it, but that is only because i 24 we are comparing it to our diesel generator, which is way ( ') 25 above the industry average as far as reliability goes, and l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
3210 08 14 102 DAVbur 1 we are continuing to work on that. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
~9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ,
21' 22 23 24 I 25 ACE FEDERAL ret'ORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
i l i 3210 09.01 103 DAVbw l_ (Slide.) i 2 The emergency core cooling systems, comprised of :
- 3 our feedwater coolant injection system supplied by one of 4 two strings that get power supply either from offsite or 1 5 from our gas turbine generator. That continues to operate 6 the reactor isolates also. 200 percent core spray pumps and 7 four 33 percent LPCI pumps, low pressure coolant 8 injection pumps.
9 We have four automatic pressure relief valves, 10 and we have an isolation condensor. 11 MR. MICHELSON: This says 100 percent core 12 spray. O- 13 Does that mean in the spray mode or simply as a l 14 water volume? ! l 15 MR. STETZ: That's in the spray mode. Each pump 1 i 16 is rated at 100 percent. 4 17 MR. MICHELSON: One pump alone, in other words, I
- 18 could cool the core, if the spray were adequately 19 uniformed. Now if the spray isn't proven to be adequately 20 uniform, what credit are you taking for core spray pumps, or l 21 have you alternatively proved'that the spray will be
- 22 adequate or the pattern?
23 DR. BICKEL: John Bickel from Northeast l 24 Utilities. The answer is, yes, we have proven that it is 1
- 25 capable or there is test data, by test data and stuff we i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646 f , _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ . . . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . ,_ _ _ - _. . . - _ ~ _ ._ _.- _--
3210 09 02 104 1 participated in as part of the owners' group. ()DAVbw 2 MR. MICHELSON: So what you're saying is that the 3 flooding capability of one core spray pump is all you need 4 to cool the core? 5 DR. BICKEL: That is correct. 6 MR. MICHELSON: Thank you. 7 MR. EBERSOLE: May I ask a question, please. 8 DR. SHEWMON: One. 9 MR. EBERSOLE: You've got a situation which 10 invites a question, which is turbine run back to house 11 load. With turbine run back to house load, under certain 12 conditions, you can run back to house load. So when you get 13 a generator -- 14 MR. STETZ: If you would like me to describe 15 that, I can. 16 MR. EBERSOLE: There's just one aspect I want to 17 ask about. When you lose the switchyard load and run back l 18 to house load, that is the kind of a trip that requires very 19 fast governor action. You retain exitations? 20 MR. STETZ: Yes. 21 HR. EBERSOLE: That could be the initiating 22 point of a turbine runaway. A turbine runaway is accounted 23 for in the explosion and dissipation of the parts in-house, 24 but what is not accounted for is the concurrent run up and A kJ 25 explosion of all the parallel connecting loads under that ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 09 03 105 ( )DAVbw 1 condition. 2 Do you have an excess frequency trip? 3 MR. STETZ: I don't believe we do. 4 MR. EBERSOLE: The question always comes up when 5 we have this neat capacity. How about just looking at that? 6 We won' t hang up on that. We'll just ask you to look at 7 it. 8 MR. STETZ: Okay. We'll be talking about that a 9 little bit more. We can withstand a full load reject, and 10 we do run back two house loads, and we wind up decreasing 11 reactor power. The remainder of the rejected steam goes i 12 directly to the turbine, to the condensor. 13 (Slide.) 4 14 The next section is on decay heat removal 15 systems. This first one is our primary method of cooling 16 down and starting up. We use the main condensor. We have 17 implemented a modification that allows us to put house 18 heating steam to the turbine seals, and we use our vacuum 19 pump, and we draw a vacuum in the main condensor. This 20 helps is deaerate and gives us better oxygen control and 21 corrosion control.
- 22 So during start-ups, a day or so before we start 23 to go critical, we do this evolution on snutting down also. .
l 24 We go through the same process. So we can cool down to a I ( 25 vacuum on the vessel, essentially from within. l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 09 04 106 1 MR. EBERSOLE: In this vintage plant, were you ()DAVbw 2 using swing checks on main and aux feedwater, just plain old 3 swing checks? There were no studies to look at the dynamics 4 of closing, particularly, under pipe break conditions, which 5 is just a hypothesis, but it may occur. It usually occurs 6 when you just run down the pumps. We just recently had this 7 thing at San Onofre. Have you all looked at your reverse 8 checks to see whether they will do what they are supposed to 9 do without anything funny, like sticking open, or when they 10 come down too hard, disintegrate? 11 MR. STETZ: We've replaced our feedwater check 12 valves in, I believe, it was a 1978 outage, and they've been nss 13 very good since then. We do leak rate tests on them. 14 MR. EBERSOLE: I don't mean leak rate tests, so 15 much as the overall competence to shut when you want them to 16 and not shut too fast. Apparently, it's not really relevant 17 to the problem. 18 MR. STETZ: We haven't had a problem with it. 19 MR. EBERSOLE: I don't think you can ramrod 20 these things too fast, Paul. I think you've got to look at 21 the dynamics of this. 22 MR. MICHELSON: Let me clarify your arrangement. 23 On the previous slide, apparently you must have 24 all three LPCI pumps, in order to get adequate flooding, if 25 you don't have core spray, for some reason; is that right? 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 09 05 107 1 DR. BICKEL: John Bickel, from Northeast l ()DAVbw l 2 Utilities. 3 What the previous slide indicated was, in terms 4 of licensing basis analysis, in terms of best estimate 5 calculations, utilizing realistic decay heat, you could also 6 come to the conclusion that you've got four 100 percent LPCI 7 pumps. That type of analysis was done for us by General
- 8 Electric and indicates that if you have a break anywhere of 9 any size, one LPCI pump will reflood it, and essentially you 10 can hold the temperatures and everything under control.
11 MR. MICHELSON: You mean between realistic 12 analysis and Appendix K analysis there's a factor of 4? 13 DR. BICKEL: That is correct. 14 MR. MICHELSON: You only need a portion of one 15 spray pump then as a flooder, you're saying? 16 DR. BICKEL: That's right. As a matter of fact, 17 you would, in fact, have to get into a situation of pulling 18 it back. 19 MR. MICHELSON: But in terms of Appendix K 20 analysis, you can get by with just one per hour. Those are 21 like one-third pumps, and that gives you two-thirds. ? 22 DR. BICKEL: Yes. 23 MR. MICHELSON: You need both sides of RHR as a 24 flooder under the Appendix K calculation. 25 DR. BICKEL: Yes. t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
3210 09 06 108 (r~)
, DAVbw 1 MR. MICHELSON: Thank you.
2 DR. REMICK: On the lower left-hand corner, I 3 assume that's your reactor water clean-up system or part of 4 it. 5 MR. STETZ: We've got another slide that gets 6 into that. If you've got a particular question about that. 7 (Slide.) 8 Our next method of removing decay heat would be, 9 in the event we had primary containment isolation. In that 10 case, the reactor would isolate. We'd wind up with reactor 11 pressure initially living the safety relief valves and the 12 isolation condenser coming into play. 13 The isolation condensor is rated at 3 percent 14 reactor power. During Hurricane Belle we used that also, 15 initiated it manually, and it's proven to be a very good 16 heat sink for us. 17 It can operate 40 minutes without makeup, and we i 18 need one valve to get it on line. 19 MR. EBERSOLE: Does the PRA show that to be worth 20 two valves? 21 MR. STETZ: Worth two valves? 22 MR. EBERSOLE: In parallel? 23 DR. BICKEL: It probably would. That's one of ! 24 the items that we've been looking at. 25 MR. STETZ: Our third method of decay heat ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-MM
3210 09 07 109 (()DAVbw I removal involves our safety relief valves and feedwater 2 systems to match decay heat. 3 We would reduce pressure getting down below, shut 4 down cooling system interlock, which is 350 degrees, and the 5 shutdown cooling system would be placed into service. 6 MR. MICHELSON: At what time? How many RHR pumps 7 do you need to keep the torus below its limits? I don't 8 know if they're 160 degrees in your case or just what, but 9 there's a blowdown limit in the ECCS analysis. How many of 10 those RHR pumps do you need? 11 DR. BICKEL: John Bickel. 12 Are your referring to during a LOCA? 13 MR. MICHELSON: Yes. A large-break LOCA, 14 generally. 15 DR. BICKEL: During a LOCA you would need to have 16 one LPCI containment cooler running and one LPCI pump 17 pushing water to it. 18 DR. SHEWMON: Go ahead, John. 19 (Slide.) 20 MR. STETZ: A fourth method of decay heat removal 21 involves safety relief valves again, using the torus as a l 22 heat sink, a feedwater system, and only one train of 23 shutdown cooling at that time. Each shutdown cooling heat 24 exchanger is rated at 22.1 million Btus per hour. O 25 (Slide.) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 09 08 110 t()DAVbw 1 Another one of the low pressure systems used for 2 decay heat removal are the LPCI heat exchangers and the 3 safety relief valves. This is typically referred to as the 4 bleed and feed method, where as the vessel is flooded from 5 the torus, you take a suction on the torus, water goes 6 through the torus up to the safety relief valves and back 7 into the torus, the LPCI heat exchangers are used to 8 maintain cooling. 9 (Slide.) 10 The next slide shows the same system, only with 11 one LPCI system in service, one LPCI heat exchanger in 12 service. 13 (Slide.) 14 This slide shows the reactor water cooler 15 clean-up system also. It can be used for decay heat removal 16 system, and we do that during the outage. Primarily, we 17 swap between shutdown cooling system and clean-up system 18 during outages to maintain decay heat. 19 We have two nonregenerative heat exchangers that 20 are cooled by reactor building closed cooling water 21 systems. That's able to match decay heat in 17 and 19 22 hours. 23 DR. REMICK: A question I had there at the 24 discussion on the PRA yesterday. I asked a question, and O i
\' 25 you indicated that this has a letdown valve. Therefore, the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 09 09 111 1 demetalizer had reduced pressure, but you have a safety {}DAVbw
-2 valve which vented to the torus, and I couldn't see that 1
3 line on the diagram. l 4 So that's a question I had. 5 MR. STETZ: That kind of detail isn't shown 6 here. i 7 _MR. EBERSOLE: Let me ask on that left-hand side, 8 if that's the only pump you've got available, the RHR pumps, 9 the pair there, and you're feeding a low pressure 10 condition in the boiler, how do you get sufficient mass flow ,
- 11 to cool the torus. I don't see a downcomer, where you 12 divert extra water to the torus, and you do need high mass
, ( 13 load to cool the torus.
14 MR. STETZ: This particular method, we don' t the 15 torus. 1 16 MR. EBERSOLE: I meant any method where you have ! 17 an intermediate sized LOCA, but you must have a full flow of 18 the RHR to get the torus cooled, do you use a diversion i 19 system to do that? Do you split the water flow? 20 MR. STETZ: The water can be throttled through 21 the heat exchanger or around the heat exchanger and injected P 22 into the vessel. 23 MR. ROMBERG: Wayne Romberg, Northeast 24 Utilities. l l l 25 I think what you' re referring to is the mass flow l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
3210 09 10 112 (~hDAVbw 1 rate through the heat exchanger, is our way of getting up
%)
2 after the torus without going through the vessel. You've 3 got to go to the vessel. If the break is not big enough, 4 you've got to open safety relief valves. 5 MR. EBERSOLE: I wanted to hear one way to do it, 6 and that's one. The other was to have a downcomer with a 7 valve in it. 8 MR. ROMBERG: They didn't give us one. 9 MR. MICHELSON: Isn't that one on the right-hand 10 side, or am I misreading the drawing? Isn't that a test 11 return on that side, in that set? 12 MR. STETZ: There is a test return line to the 13 torus. 14 MR. MICHELSON: Apparently for one set, but not 15 for t:te other. At least the drawing only shows one on one 16 side. So apparently, depending on where the power failure 17 is, you may or may not have a return loop to the torus. But 18 I assume maybe that drawing just isn't complete. You've got 19 to have a route back to the torus, if you're going to cool 20 the torus on that side. You've got one on the right-hand 21 side, but none is shown on the left. 22 MR. GRIMES: Dr. Michelson, this is Chris Grimes 23 of the Staff. 24 LPCI has a containment cooling mode, which would 25 spray into the torus or the driver. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l l 3210 09 11 113 ()DAVbw 1 MR. MICHELSON: Only one is shown on the 2 right-hand side of this drawing. The one on the left-hand 3 side is omitted. 4 MR. GRIMES: This is a simple corliguration. I 5 happened to be looking at the PNID yesterday, and I believe 6 here are cross connections, so if you want to get back to 7 the torus with the others. 8 MR. MICHELSON: Clearly, there's got to be , 9 something or a single failure analysis. 10 DR. SHEWMON: We're agreed then. Let's go on. 11 (Slide.) 12 MR. STETZ: A bit about the unit history. 13 Construction started in May of 1966. Criticality 14 in October 1970, initial operation in December 1970. 15 If you look at the dates from construction start 16 to commercial operation, it's 4 years and 7 months. From 17 construction start to initial criticality, 4 years and 5 18 months. 19 That's the key to keeping the ratepayers happy, 20 that we found. When we put Unit 1 into service, we had a 21 rate decrease, and we were quite popular at the time. 22 Things have changed since then. 23 MR. MICHELSON: I would suggest that if want to 24 get some good questions in.that we skip a lot of this trivia , O 25 and get on with the more important things. The plant's ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Covuase 800 336 6646
3210 09 12 114 1 there. We admit it.
~()DAVbw 2 (Laughter.)
3 DR. SHEWMON: What's your main point on this one? 4 (Slide.) 5 MR. STETZ: The main point is that we're doing 6 better planning. If you look at some of the outages and i 7 some of the things that we've done during the outages, we've 8 had short outages, 35, 36-day outages, where we've done a 9 tremendous amount of work. We've done torus modificiations, 10 we've changed out intermediate pressure feedwater heaters, 11 we've tied in an off-gas system, all in 35 days. 12 If you look at some of the longer outages, they O- 13 reflect surprises that we found during the outage. Issues 14 that came up. Masonry walls, piping hangers, things like 15 that. 16 My point is with this slide is to tell you that 17 we're doing a lot better planning today. We're doing more 18 contingency planning, more planning than we can do in those 19 areas, considering our manpower availability. It helps us 20 tremendously, and we realize that. 21 MR. EBERSOLE: May I ask a question, please. 22 Apart from all this, what kind of thermal 23 insulation is inside the torus? l 24 MR. STETZ: Thermal insulation? It's not l 25 insulated. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
3210 09 13 115 ()DAVbw 1 MR. EBERSOLE: You've got to insulate the hot 2 pipes. I mean the process pipes inside the drywell. 3 MR. STETZ: We have a pad-type insulation. 4 MR. EBERSOLE: When it blows off, how do you keep 5 the soup from plugging up all the processes? 6 MR. STETZ: We have deflector plates inside the 7 drywell itself, and then we have screens in the torus, the 8 standard design. They're located one-third of the way up 9 the torus. 10 MR. EBERSOLE: When you zip out phones, do you 11 have hydrophones to keep the seals from coming apart on the 12 pumps? 13 MR. ROMBERG: Wayne Romberg, Northeast. 14 Most of the insulation in the drywell is 15 mirror. At selected locations, we've replaced it with pads, 16 but if you look at the total amount of pad in there, it's 17 relatively small, and we have analyzed the effect of pad 18 relative to the filters and strainers. 19 MR. EBERSOLE: Have you gotten rid of these 20 Goldberg hydrophones that protect the seals and generals, or 21 did you have them at all? 22 MR. ROMBERG: I'm not aware of that. l 23 MR. EBERSOLE: The filtration systems in the 24 water cooling and lubrication system. ' N 25 MR. MICHELSON: You understand what he's saying i l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
y 3210 09 14 116
~
Oo^ve- 1 no , om eae Rua pe pe, eor imete=ce, ao vou teo1 eue L 2 seals. Do you take a bypass streem from the process? I'~ s 3 MR. ROMBERG: Yes. 4 MR. MICHELSON: What do you pass it through in 5 the process of going through the seal? You must go through
~
6 a filter of some sort or a separator of some sort. 7 I think you'll find GE plants almost universally 8 use separators. It's a little device about that big around 9 and about that high. And that's what Jesse is getti~ng at. i 10 MR. EBERSOLE: There is a generic item on this. 11 Has this been covered for this plant in 12 particular? 13 MR. GRIMES: The results of USIA 43 on sump 14 performance have just recently been published and released. 15 I dons't recall what implementation criteria were in that 16 room. We'd expect to look at that. 17 - 18 ! 19 20 21 22 [ 23 24 25
- 's ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
4 - -
- . 9 k,3210 10 '01 e '
117 f')DAVbur 1 s ,* MR. MICHELSON: That hasn't been looked at, then;
\.j g 2,
t
~
is ,tT.at what you are saying? s 3 \ MR. GRIMES: There hasn't been any effort or any 4 operating plant to look at the debris effects. 5 MR. MICHELSON: But once the item is resolved, 6 don't. you start looking at each new situation as it comes t
.7 up?
8 This is an operating license now; it is a new
' ,9 situation.
' ^
10 Don't you start implementing the decision? 11 MR. GRIMES: The implementation requirements are
, ' ' ' 12 established by Kuger, as I said. The results of USIA-43,
/\
(_) 13 which was.recently published, I don't recall what the 14 implementation criteria were for operating plants. w. 15 MR. MICHELSON: So you don't know whether you are 16 supposed to.be implementing it on this plant or not? s 17 MR. GRIMES: That is correct. 18 ( MR. MICHELCON: You might want to find out. 19 MR. GRIMES: I do know that at the time we 20 'pu}.lished the conversion SER USIA had not been resolved. 21 - N '" (Slide.) s-22 MR. STETZ: Our overall capacity factor is 67.5 23 and availability is 75 percent. ( 24 DR. CARBON: Are those megawatt-hours? MR. STET 2: Yes, they are. {.5
.0 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
g ,y. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 _ W __
3210 10 02 118 "'3 DAVbur 1 (Slide.) J 2 We have several methods available to us, 3 management tools that help us in this area. We discussed 4 them a little bit at the subcommittee meeting. 5 One of them is a monthly utility performance 6 monitoring report that gives us graphs of 14 items and 7 comparos u:3 to other industry averages. It covers capacity 8 factors, forced outage rates, license event reports, 9 generated red waste radiation exposure contamination, rad 10 waste effluence, things like that. 11 MR. EBERSOLE: I would say that is an outstanding 12 record, isn't it? Where does it stand on the spectrum, you
) 13 know, when you discount refueling?
14 DR. SHEWMON: When you have 60 days at a crack, 15 you do pretty well. 16 MR. EBERSOLE: Yes, I would say. 17 DR. MOELLER: Excuse ne, on the lost availability 18 breakdown, what should all of those numbers total? 19 I have a 17 and an 8 and a 7. 20 MR. STETZ: This 8. 21 DR. MOELLER: Okay. So it totals 25. Thank 22 you. 23 MR. STETZ: That is the second method that we 24 have. It is a quarterly nuclear unit performance graph that 25 comes out in a pie shape, and perhaps -- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
4 1 3210 10 03 119 DAVbur 1 MR. EBERSOLE: When you have an equipment 2 failure, do you have an organized routine for reducing the 3 chance you will have the same one again? 4 MR. STETZ: Yes. We certainly do. We have a 5 plant incident recording form. Any significant problems we 6 have can generate one of those, and it requires us to do a I 7 root cause analysis on it. 8 But these reports also show us routine types of 9 things, like condenser -- downtime for condenser repairs 10 during. leak checks and things like that. We can look at the 11 end of the year and determine how much that has cost us and 12 determine whether we want to replace the condenser. 13 MR. EBERSOLE: Has that resulted in any added i 14 coincidence or redundancy in equipment anywhere as a result 15 of too frequent shifts, especially in feedwater controls? 16 MR. STETZ: Our feedwater control system is 17 highly reliable, and we have had very few, if any, problems 18 along those lines. 19 MR. EBERSOLE: What is the average scram 20 frequency you have had? 21 MR. STETZ: This year we have been doing good up 22 to about three months ago. We have had several in the last 23 couple of months. 24 MR. ROMBERG: Wayne Romberg, Northeast l f's N/ 25 Utilities. l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I 3210 10 04 120 (~')\ (_ DAVbur 1 There have been three scrams in the last two 2 years. Unfortunately, all three of them were in the last 3 couple of months. 4 MR. EBERSOLE: That is still pretty good. J MR. ROMBERG: One of them was due to a shutdown 6 for the pending hurricane. That kind of blew us. We had -- i MR. EBERSOLE: That don't count. 8 MR. ROMBERG: It counts in our book. 9 MR. STETZ: I wouldn't call these spurious. We 10 know what caused them. It was corrosion product intrusion 11 on the valving in the demineralizer. We have done a lot of 12 work in that area, also. ( 13 MR. EBERSOLE: You are getting down close to one 14 to two per year? 15 MR. STETZ: Less than that. 16 MR. EBERSOLE: Say, that is a contest with the 17 Japanese, isn't it? 18 MR. STETZ: It sure is, 19 DR. SHEWMON: Once you guys have identified 20 yourself, he is good enough to keep you straight. 21 How many more slides do you have? 22 MR. STETZ: Two or three more. 23 MR. REED: One comment. 24 The operator error of .1 percent, that is rather
,3 '~'J 25 good compared to the media and others reporting to what we ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
3210 10 05 121 1 have had from the United States nuclear industry. Equipment ()DAVbur 2 failure correlates perhaps to design. 3 I am just wondering if operator error includes 4 mainter:11ce? 5 MR. STETZ: Yes, it does. Maintenance, INC 6 testing, anything like that. 7 MR. REED: It looks awfully low. I tend more to 8 believe it, but I find that the reporting in USA Nuclear 9 doesn't jive with it at all. 10 DR. SHEWMON: Fine. Onward. 11 MR. EBERSOLE: It is not hard to run a boiler. 12 (Laughter.) O)
\~ 13 MR. STET 2: One point on that. Our operators, we 14 have a very stable workforce, and many of the shift 15 supervisors have been around since the early '70s, and I 16 think that helps out tremendously.
17 (Slide.) 18 This shows our capacity factors. They vary quite 19 a bit. 20 If you look on the whole, if you take out the 21 first couple of years, 1974 to 1984, after we have matured a 22 little bit, our capacity factor is 70.3. The industry is 23 58.9. 24 If you look at some of the recent figures, 1983, 25 we were 40 percent higher than the industry average as far l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 10 06 122 ()DAVbur 1 as capacity factor goes. 2 1984, we were 30 percent higher than the BWR 3 average. We were 18 percent higher than the PWR average. 4 1985, when we shut down as of June '85, we were 5 50 percent higher than the average BWR capacity factor and 6 35 percent higher than the PWR. 7 Overall, we were about 11 percent higher than the 8 industry. 9 MR. REED: Those figures, again, don't jive with 10 the comment that Jesse just made. 11 MR. STETZ: These figures are from General 12 Electric, so they may be one or two points off, depending on
} .
13 how they rate capacity factors. But they should be pretty 14 close. 15 A word on the 1985 record. We operated 374 16 continuous days. That puts us No. 6 in the world. In the 17 United States we are the top BWR, and there are only three 18 plants above us -- Oconee, CY, and Maine Yankee. The other 19 two foreign plants are Chenkei and Fukushima. 20 MR. REED: Those are all PWRs, right? 21 MR. STETZ: Yes. Those are all PWRs except for 22 Fukushima. 23 DR. SHEWMON: That wasn' t a question. Go ahead. 24 He has made his point. O 25 (Laughter.) . ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 10 07 123 Co^veur 1 (s11ae > 2 MR. STETZ: License event reports, 1975 to 1980. 3 The industry averaged about 50.2, 1981 to 1985. 4 The industry averaged somewhere about the same, 50.9. So we 5 as a utility, Northeast Utilities, we run about half of 6 that. 7 MR. MICHELSON: That could have two meanings. 8 One is that you fellows aren't very good at reporting. 9 (Laughter.) 10 MR. MICHELSON: The other meaning is that indeed 11 you have a low level of reporting need. 12 I am sure you won't want to comment on which it
~)
(k / 13 is. 14 DR. SHEWMON: We asked a local resident about 15 that, and he thought they reported what they should. 16 MR. REED: Does this plant have standardized tech 17 specs or customized tech specs? 18 MR. STETZ: Custom tech specs. 19 MR. REED: You have got your answer. 20 (Slide.) 21 MR. STETZ: I would just like to pick out several 22 of these and highlight some areas that we have been working 23 on. 24 The 8-by-8 refuel, we are a leader in the i O 25 industry as far as fuel cycles go. l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646 )
3210 10 08 124 DAVbur 1 DR. SHEWMON: We are running behind schedule. 2 MR. STETZ: I am not going to go through every 3 one of these. 4 DR. SHEWMON: Could we look them over and see if 5 people have questions? 6 MR. STETZ: Sure. 7 (No response.) 8 DR. SHEWMON: Okay, onward. 9 DR. MOELLER: What is the nitrogen compressor 10 system? 11 MR. STETZ: The nitrogen compressor system takes 12 a suction on our dry well atmosphere and it returns it to 13 the air system inside the dry well so we do not add any 14 oxygen or any air to the containment itself. 15 DR. KERR: In the course of your PRA studies, did 16 you calculate the risk reduction that was produced by the 17 Appendix R-mandated changes? 18 DR. BICKEL: Yes. John Bickel, Northeast 19 Utilities. 20 We did look at a number of them. There is a 21 slide showing where some of them fit in in terms of the 22 overall list of things on the books, and I will get to that 23 in my presentation. 24 MR. STETZ: That concludes my discussion. n 25 DR. SHEWMON: Okay. 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
3210 10 09 125 O DAvber 1 rorrese2 2 DR. REMICK: If I recall, on Unit 3 you used the 3 combined STA-SRO. At that time the staff wasn't clear they 4 were going to approve it. 5 Have you decided on Unit 1 what you are going to 6 do with your STA? Are you going to combine it or not? 7 MR. KACICH: We have been using the dual RO on 8 Millstone 1 since late '83 and systemwide -- when I say 9 Millstone 1 -- and on CY since January 1st, '84. 10 DR. REMICK: Do you plun to continue to do that? 11 MR. KACICH: Unless we get absolutely forced to 12 do otherwise.
') 13 MR. REED: There has been a recent change in the 14 qualifications of the dual role person.
15 Are you aware of those? Are you going to be able 16 to meet that? 17 MR. KACICH: Not without making some changes. 18 MR. REED: So you are saying that the dual role 19 thing has been discouraged? 20 MR. KACICH: Our plans that we have had in place 21 for the last two years are not consistent with the recently 22 published, policy statement, that is correct. We would 23 rather keep what we have, but I am not sure that we will be 24 able to convince the powers that be. l f_s k-] 25 MR. EBERSOLE: Are you all aware of the ups and l t l l \ l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 10 10 126 1 downs of the scram discharge volume drain valve shenanigans ()DAVbur 2 that have occurred in recent months? 3 MR. STETZ: Yes, we are. 4 MR. EBERSOLE: Are you doing anything about it 5 that we would find interesting? 6 MR. STETZ: We haven't had the problem. We do 7 leak rate checks on our valves. We do stem travel checks on 8 them, and we haven't had the problems that Oyster Creek has 9 had. 10 MR. EBERSOLE: You are keeping tight maintenance 11 on those valves? 12 MR. STETZ: Yes. C. s- 13 DR. SHEWMON: Any other questions? 14 (No response.) 15 DR. SHEWMON: Now, I think Okrent has had his 16 say. So we will go on to you, John. 17 ! DR. LEWIS: You skipped that break. It says 3:15 I 18 to 3:30. 19 DR. SHEWMON: That is all right. You will have 20 to give me a copy of the agenda you are working on. 21 DR. LEWIS: I am not insisting, but if you look 22 to the time it says 3:15 to 3:30. 23 DR. SHEWMON: Does anybody want a break? 24 MR. REED: I might point out that that small 25 50-man maintenance craft organization apparently does very ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coveiage 800 33Mi646
3210 10 11 127 ()DAVbur 1 well at Millstone in just keeping all these things moving 2 like crazy. 3 DR. KERR: It may be that they don't have time to 4 get around to things, Glenn, so they work pretty well. 5 DR. SHEWMON: How long is your presentation going 6 to take, John? 7 DR. BICKEL: Dr. Shewmon, with the interest 8 that -- I believe we could cut some of the stuff on the PRA, 9 the materials in the handout. I would like to discuss a few 10 minutes about the ISAP process because that is new material 11 that I don't believe was fully discussed with Dave Okrent's 12 subcommittee. 13 Would that be appealing to anybody? 14 DR. SHEWMON: Yes. Let's go on. 15 DR. BICKEL: Fine. 16 DR. SHEWMON: Professor Lewis can leave. 17 DR. LEWIS: I was trying to protect everyone 18 else. 19 DR. BICKEL: I will move the slide projector a 20 bit here. 21 (Slide.) 22 As you all heard and was discussed earlier at the 23 subcommittee meetings, we have completed a PRA study which 24 we are using as part of our ISAP process. I would like to 25 walk you through briefly how the PRA is being integrated l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33W>46
3210 10 12 128 1 into the decisionmaking and engineering process within ()DAVbur 2 Northeast Utilities. 3 (Slide.) 4 My first slide, essentially we have a living PRA 5 model that embodies data from event frequencies at the 6 plant, reliability of our equipment based on 15 years of 7 operating experience, and success criteria, which is based 8 on best estimate type calculations, computer runs, hand 9 calculations, reflecting what we believe is relatively close 10 to actual performance. 11 The other things that are considered in the PRA 12 are the actual emergency operating procedures, abnormal 13 operating procedures, test and maintenance procedures, and 14 what they look at and the scope of those tests. 15 We consider the existing technical specifications 16 and the impact on the day-to-day operation, testing, and 17 that type of thing, limiting conditions of 18 operation. 19 We additionally are very heavily looking at the 20 actual design and layout of the plant, the hardware design, 21 how it is configured, and what it interfaces with. These 22 six elements are put together into the PRA model. 23 Now, we have the capability at Northeast 24 Utilities of maintaining the model up to date. It is live. (3
\/ 25 It is on a computer. It can be utilized and essentially l
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ! 202-347-3700 " Nationwide Coverage 800-33tWi646 l _ -
3210 10 13 129 1 play sensitivity game studies with possible design procedure (])DAVbur 2 changes. 3 (Slide.) 4 To utilize the PRA model in a process such as the 5 integrated safety assessment program, the model is linked 6 with what we call a public safety impact model. 7 Now, what this model does is it allows us to look 8 at design changes, be they initiated either by the NRC or 9 internal work that we have done at Northeast Utilities, to 10 gauge what the impact on public safety is using the 11 information and insights f rom the PRA model. 12 How does this work? 13 (Slide.) 14 The overall ISAP process considers five elements 15 in our decisionmaking process. Public safety is, of course, 16 the highlighted item. 17 Additionally, we do consider the impacts on plant 18 availability and reliability, the personal safety of our 19 operators and the personnel within the plant, looking at 20 impacts of equipment and procedures on productivity of the 21 people at the plant, and we have an additional category 22 which we call external impact. 23 Now, external impact allows us to deal with the 24 fact that some of our changes in some areas are not related x- 25 to safety. They are driven by things -- as an example, the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Mi646
3210 10 14 130 n,)
. DAVbur 1 Town of Waterford, where the Millstone station is located, 2 has been up in arms with sewer connection they would like us 3 to make with one of our refueling outage buildings. They 4 would like us to hock it up and link up to the sewer system, 5 and they have given us black marks about when are you going 6 to do this.
7 These types of project obviously cost money and 8 compete with other resources within the company to carry 9 them out. So things like that are treatable in the overall 10 ISAP process. 11 However, the main focus is and remains public 12 safety. 13 DR. LEWIS: What is the measure that you use of 14 public safety? 15 DR. BICKEL: 'Dr. Lewis, what we use is -- we have 16 a PRA model which, first of all, is a Level 1 PRA, but it 17 segregates the type of core melt f requencies into dif ferent 18 areas, such as, you know, LOCAs with early core melt, 19 transients with late core melt, that type of thing. We 20 scale that via our conversion process into an impact in 21 terms of man / rem. We are then able to do cost-benefit 22 decisional analyses based on man / rems per dollar, that type 23 of thing. e~ 24 DR. LEWIS: So it is man / rem? bg 25 DR. BICKEL: That is correct. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 646 _ ,_
3210 11 01 131
/~TDAVbur 1 MR. EBERSOLE: Of all the things up there, the V
2 thing that has the most fuzziness in it is equipment 3 reliability. 4 In the context of environmental qualification, we 5 have found that these ERDA plants in particular sort of wave 6 their arms about qualifying equipment. They are not 7 hermetically sealed. They use open terminals and hope that 8 condensation wouldn't cause shorts and a host of other 9 fundamental weaknesses that have flawed the whole notion of 10 whether things would work when you are in trouble. 11 How did you depress your reliabilities 12 appropriately for that weakness? () 13 DR. BICKEL: I would like to point out that as 14 part of the overall compliance activities of Northeast 15 Utilities, working toward 10 CFR 49 compliance, I believe 16 the number is something like 700 individual components have 17 been modified, sealed, and fixed up so that we meet the 18 intent. 19 There were several motor operators left at the 20 end of this process, which we evaluated in terms of the 21 context of the ISAP program. We have been able to at least, 22 in our opinion -- we have documented and discussed this with 23 the staff through a document -- that the remaining motor 24 operators, based on our analysis have almost no impact at n U 25 all. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 11 02 132 DAVbur 1 In fact, some of them we can very clearly 2 demonstrate have zero impact. 3 MR. EBERSOLE: By and large, did you have to go 4 to the hermetically sealed or waterproofed concept rather 5 than permit leakage clearances? 6 DR. BICKEL: I believe there are some areas where 7 they did put -- like they enclosed switchgear areas, 8 batteries, and things like that. They have gone to , 9i essentially sealed rooms that are essentially pretty much 1D tightened up, so that they are essentially walled up and 11 defended against. ! 12 MR. EBERSOLE: So you did not concede, as does () 13 most, that leakage currents would be permissible? 14 DR. BICKEL: I don't know what other people did 15 do. 16 MR. EBERSOLE: Most of them do that? 17 DR. REMICK: Another question. 18 In answering Dr. Lewis, you indicated man / rems. 19 I assume that is some kind of an ersatz man / rem to the 4 20 public vertua man / rem to occupational risks? 21 DR. BICKEL: What I am talking about in the 22 public safety impact model is man / rem to the public, or 23 equivalent man / rem. 24 We do evaluate the impact in terms of our () 25 personnel in the plant. The man / rem due to ALARA type l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ! 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
3210 11 03 133 1 issues. When you have got to implement a change, you are {)DAVbur 2 going to burn some craft and plant personnel up implementing 3 a change. 4 That is one of the items that would be weighed in 5 developing the net impact. 6 MR. MICHELSON: Do you include now system i 7 interaction effects in your studies, or are you waiting for 8 the resolution of a safety issue? 9 DR. BICKEL: In terms of system interaction 10 effects, the types of system interactions we considered, we 11 concentrated basically on the electrical ones. It is our 12 belief, at least within our PRA group, that the electrical () 13 interactions are the most likely. They are the ones with 14 which the effort would and should be concentrated on. 15 The type of things we have studied have been in 16 the area of DC, vital AC, particularly sensitive control 17 signals. 18 MR. MICHELSON: Let me ask, have you included, i 19 for instance, environmental interaction in your studies, or 20 interaction between systems like fire protection and the 21 electrical systems? 22 DR. BICKEL: The scope of what we have evaluated 23 now, this is a Level 1 internal events only PRA. The ! -24 intended purpose -- this is the first building block into a 25 number of other things that we will be considering -- fire, l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33(H5646
3210 11 04 134 1 flooding, and that type of thing -- later. We will be (")DAVbur v 2 getting to that. 3 This was, as I say, what was the first block. If 4 you get the Level 1 PRA, you view yourselves as being way 5 ahead of anyone who doesn't. 6 MR. MICHELSON: You are essentially saying you 7 are taking care of the hardwired interaction potentials? 8 DR. BICKEL: That is correct. 9 The process of ISAP, especially when considering 10 five inputs leads to a score of the project, if that score 11 is sufficiently high, based on the knowledge of the 12 analysts, which is NU, that performed the work, it goes () 13 back, and we can reach one of two conclusions, one of which 14 being: folks, let's sharpen our pencils and do a little bit 15 further analysis. 16 Possibly we could utilize the insights we have 17 from this process to see if we can refine the design change, 18 and we have in fact many times as a part of ISAP done just 19 that. 20 One example, I think it was asked earlier, that 21 was about fire protection. One of the Appendix R fixes 22 being looked at on Millstone 1 was to provide the capability 23 for backfitting power from Millstone Unit 2 to Millstone 24 Unit 1 to run a CRD pump in-'the event you had a major fire ((_~
/ 25 in the switchgear area.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 11 05 135 1 We looked at the design and the score was kind of ['}DAVbur 2 low, but with a little bit of work we found that we could 3 implement a change similar to that that would allow feeding 4 instead of maybe one pump powering whole areas of the plant, 5 using a diesel on Millstone Unit 2. 6 The impact of that, by a small modification in 7 the design, not only impacted fire events, but it 8 additionally allowed one to take credit for it in the event 9 that you had something like a station AC blackout. 10 That is one area where we will either consider 11 modifying the design so that it comes up with a better score 12 or is more worthwhile doing. () 13 Other areas where one might consider further 14 analysis would be to go back and look at could we refine the 15 success criteria. Should we make changes in that? Is there 16 a need to change or update equipment reliability based on 17 new experience or new events? 18 (slide.) 19 Another alternative approach is given where we 20 conclude that no further analysis is warranted and it is 21 time to make a fix. 22 In that area we can look to changes either in 23 plant procedures or to technical specifications, in some 24 areas changes to the actual hardware design of the plant. fh s_/ 25 We have identified as part of our PRA, both in 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 11 06 136 1 the changes in all three of those areas, some of which are CJT DAVbur 2 proceeding right now. 3 MR. EBERSOLE: John, as an integral process, how 4 4 close together are your units? 5 DR. BICKEL: They are adjacent. 6 MR. EBERSOLE: Well, in looking at just this part 7 you spoke about, the diesel, you eventually look at the 8 station as an integral station or as three subunits, 9 independent or not independent. l 10 A more comprehensive look at whether cross-class 11 help is good or bad? ! l 12 DR. BICKEL: We looked at sharing power from a () 13 diesel in the ISAP effort, and we were able to conclude that 14 if you assumed you had like a blackout, you had all the 15 diesels working on Unit 2 but nothing working on Unit 1, you 16 could swing one of the diesels to help Unit 1. 17 We concluded that the net benefits outweighed any 18 of the possible deleterious effects. 19 We would only consider that, obviously, under 20 some very grave situations. But nonetheless we concluded it 21 was a good idea to do such a thing. 22 The ISAP process also has, at least in our way of 23 looking at it, that if you arrive at the fact that it has , 24 got no safety, economic, or other benefits, the project 1 (~ 1
\_) 25 should be a very good candidate for elimination, just ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33HM6
3210 11 07 137 1 getting rid of it, getting it off the books. [}DAVbur 2 This includes both projects that we have proposed 3 and in some areas things we will be discussing with the 4 staff. 5 (Slide.) 6 How the overall thing works. 7 The models we have set up are in matrix form. 8 Essentially, this is what I guess you would call the state 9 of the art, the way people are doing PRAs these days. 10 We are essentially looking at -- we have a vector 4 11 that contains the statistics of all the initiating events 12 considered in the study, and there is a matrix which () 13 essentially embodies the probability of various systems 14 failing or not working or human errors, and what not. 15 The resultant vector that comes out at the 16 back-end is the frequency of each of the individual plant 17 damage states. Each one of those unique plant damage states 18 which, if you would like, would be a transient with an early 19 or late core melt, containment safeguards working or not 20 working, we can ascribe some man / rem consequence to them. 21 DR. LEWIS: I wonder if I could interrupt for one 22 second. 23 In the coefficients there, are you making an l 24 . effort to use realistic coefficients or conservative 25 coefficients? i f l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ( . ..
1 l 3210 11 08 138 1 DR. BICKEL: We are right now using something I {}DAVbur 2 guess I would call a little bit in the middle. 3 Let me explain what I mean by that. First of 4 all, we would view that to go to an absolute best estimate 5 of each and every one of those terms one would necessitate 6 reinventing an awful lot of wheels and what is known about 7 BWR source terms. 8 We did not have the livery at the time or the 9 resources to do that. We obviously believed that WASH-1400 10 had some obvious conservatisms. 11 What we did was we got an overall scale of the 12 man / rem that could come out, the worst, the most limiting (~ 13 type of core melt, using some of the results of the IDCOR 14 work, and we then proceeded to scale the total man / rem or 15 proportionate -- however you would come out in various , 16 terms. 17 In other words, we would say we would believe 18 that you would only get like -- saying as an example, a 19 transient induced core melt that occurred late. Then you 20 would cet about half the total. So we got about a .5 21 multiplier. And what we view as the worst possible. 22 If we were to attempt to develop the thing into j 23 the detailed groups like IDCOR or a full-blown Level 3 PRA, l 24 we would view that, number one, we would engage the staff in 25 a five or six-year review. We think we can make sound ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. A -347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
3210 11 09 139 1 decisions with going somewhere better than WASH-1400 but not (])DAVbur 2 going all the way to the Level 3 PRA. 3 DR. LEWIS: WASH-1400 was 10 years ago. 4 DR. SHEWMON: John, if you can finish in five 5 minutes, we will get a break. 6 Don't give too many examples. 7 (Laughter.) 8 DR. BICKEL: I think we can do that. 9 (Slide.) 10 We are calculating risk very simply in terms of 11 deltas for each of the proposed projects which are under 12 consideration. We are looking at an exposure period in most m s 13 cases, which is the remaining years left of operation of the 14 plant, 25 years. 15 The deltas we are getting are coming from the 16 exercising of the PRA model. This would be the change we j 17 see in the individual plant damage states. 18 Once we calculate the delta, we propagate this 19 through the model in a matter of minutes. 20 We essentially again have these weights of 21 man / rem given each individual plant damage state. We come 22 up then with a net delta in man / rem as a result of 23 individual changes. 24 (Slide.)
/'T k/ 25 We have been asked to give some examples.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
. --- , _ _ _ - ~ . - - . ' ~ 3210 11 10 140 l j 1 The PRA that we identified right now indicates a
(])DAVbur l 2 very large contribution coming from the issue of long-term i 3 decay heat removal in a number of systems. We believe there ' 4 4 is some further analysis warranted in that area. We also 5 believe that there is possibly some upgrading of some i 6 equipment. 7 If one looks at the delta at core melt, it works 8 out to be about 64 percent changed. If we could completely 9 eliminate it -- we will never completely eliminate it, but 10 that is the maximum one could get out of it. 11 - The delta and risk would amount to about 38,000 12 man / rem. We believe a cost-benefit criterion such as () 13 embodied in our corporate safety goals, we would be 14 justified in spending roughly $38 million to completely 15 eliminate that. 16 So we have the ability to essentially justify 17 doing some work and some further analysis. 18 DR. REMICK: What did you use for the exposure 19 period? 20 DR. BICKEL: 25 years. 21 MR. EBERSOLE: John, at this point it seems 22 appropriate to ask you this: do you belong to the BWR 23 Owners Group, the GE Owners Group? ! 24 DR.-BICKEL: Yes. ' 25 MR. EBERSOLE: I noticed in one of these SARs l ! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 _._-33(H5646 _ . , _ _ , , . _ - , ,
3210 11 11 141 1 that they had a position taken on venting that they wouldn't (}DAVbur 2 do it until all the trouble had really occurred, the core 3 was melted and you exceeded environmental conditions, et 4 cetera, et cetera, and you were just doing that to keep from 5 blowing up the containment. 6 That precludes the advantage of preventing core 7 melt by pre-venting. 8 Are you going to look at that? 9 DR. BICKEL: We have currently in our emergency 10 operating procedures a procedure on containment venting 11 right now for certain scenarios. 12 MR. EBERSOLE: One of the effects you would () 13 immediately have is you would deny depressurization because 14 of the inability of the SRVs to survive the environment? 15 DR. BICKEL: I guess I am a little bit 16 constrained. 17 MR. EBERSOLE: You hold your SRVs open by 18 applying electrical energy to them. They are holding 19 coils. They get too hot. They will open the circuit and 20 quit. Then you are locked up at high pressure, and you have 21 got no place to go. 22 DR. BICKEL: Yes, I think I understand what your 23 question is. I would have to think on it. 24 MR. EBERSOLE: That is all I wanted. 25 MR. WARD: The 38,000 man / rem, that is calculated ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 3210 11 12 142 ) 1 out to what, a 50-mile radius or something like that? {}DAVbur 2 DR. BICKEL: It is, I believe, 350. 3 MR. WARD: A 350-mile radius? 4 DR. BICKEL: Well, basically what this is based 5 on, that is where it came from. We looked at three 6 different studies, including the Sandia siting study. 7 Although it was a rather infamous study, it has got an awful 8 lot of utilities looking at sensitivities to different sites 9 due to various issues. 10 I believe it is 350. Somebody correct me if I am 11 wrong. 12 MR. WARD: That is an awful long way out. It () 13 sounds like a lot of those man / rem are cumulated. It could 14 be at tiny exposure levels. 15 DR. BICKEL: That is probably true. 16 DR. SHEWMON: Why don' t we say that is one of the 17 things he will get back at us with? 18 MR. WARD: Okay. 19 (Slide.) 20 DR. BICKEL: I believe it is 350 miles. 21 Another area we did look at -- and this is one of 22 the ISAP issues. I am giving these as some brief 23 examples -- was the issue of control room habitability 24 modifications. C's (./ 25 There were three issues as part of the ISAP, one l l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(HM46 l . . . - - -
3210 11 13 143 [' ' ;DAVbur 1 being the issue of chlorine gas release. We have a large 2 tank of liquid chlorine we use for chlorination of our water 3 systems. 4 Another area we looked at on Unit 1 is the 5 potential of a core melt at Millstone Unit 2, releasing 6 radiation which then induces core damage on Millstone Unit 7 1. 8 I would also point out this evaluation was 9 completed before Unit 3 actually became a major issue, but 10 the HVAC was also looked at and its potential for 11 influencing the operator environment, the potential stress 12 he might be under. ( 13 MR. MICHELSON: That is a redundant system, isn't 14 it? 15 DR. BICKEL: What was proposed in the upgrade 16 is -- 17 MR. MICHELSON: You are not presently redundant 18 in safety grade? 19 MR. ROMBERG: The ventilating system is not. 20 MR. MICHELSON: Have you gone through some kind 21 of an exercise as to what would happen if you lost your 22 ventilation? l 23 MR. ROMBERG: We occasionally practice that. 24 MR. MICHELSON: Purposely, where you take some (- (")% 25 good data, and so forth, and extrapolate it and decide at ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
"\ ,
b 3210 11 14 _144' 1 what point you would have a problem with loss of _ (~TDAVbur s/ 1 2 ventilation? s 3 MR. ROMBERG: No, we have not done that. We have 4 had losses of ventilation. 5 MR. MICHELSON: There aren't very many plants who 6 have simple train ventilation in the control room. I would 7 think if one doesn't then the staff would be quite insistent 8 upon some good data on the consequences of loss of single 9 trains. 10 DR. SHEWMON: The point is they have lost it a 11 couple of times. 12 MR. MICHELSON: But under noncontrolled () 13 conditions, wherein they don't have good data. 14 Have you got a good data, good history of 15 extrapolation so we aren't in trouble? 16 Fine. If you are saying you have done that, 17 great. If you just say you lost it -- 18 DR. SHEWMON: How long are you talking abcut? 19 MR. MICHELSON: Several hours. 20 MR. ROMBERG: We have had it out a lot longer 21 than that during periods of refueling outages, where 22 everything is still energized in the control room and all 1 23 the heat sources. It has been out for days. l 24 MR. MICHELSON: What is your equilibrium () 25 temperature at the end of days? l l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
t %' t, e- sr , 3210 11 15 145 l b , I 1 MR. ROMBERG: It ends up in the 90-degree range. ()DhVbur 2 MR. MICHELSON: I find that difficult to 3 believe. L s 4 MR. ROMBERG: We don't have as much equipment as 5 some of the newer plants do. 6 MR. EBERSOLE: Just one little extrapolation: 7 what about these big RHR pumps? How big are they? Are they 8 2000, 800, 1000? What about the room temperature if they 9 have to run? 10 MR. ROMBERG: tie did some initial startup 11 testing. I don' t remember - to 900 horsepower. For the 12 initial horsepower testing, we added heat sinks, we were ( 13 actually boiling water, a steam environment. . 14 MR. EBERSOLE: In other words, you have pretty 15 much vr11 dated that you can get along without ventilation? 16 MR. ROMBERG: That is right. We have documented 17 the test. 18 MR. MICHELSON: How hot does it get up there at 19 the hottest time of the year? 20 MR. ROMBERG: Occasionally, at the hottest time 21 of the year we might get c1cse to 100. 1 22 MR. MICHELSON: And on the hottest day of the 23 year, when you are most likely to lose the ventilation 24 system, what would you think the rooms would go to, and is 25 that still okay? l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
~ - - . . _ . . _ . . . _. _ . . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3210 11 16 146 DAVbur 1 MR. ROMBERG: That is a problem. We would . 2 probably have to shut down. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l t 21 22 23 24 O 25 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 6
. . - ~ . - _ _ - = .- _-. .. - .___ ..
3210 12 01 147 1 MR. ROMBERG: The other situation we have at the {}DAVbw 2 control room is between 1 and 2. There is a glass sliding 3 door between the two of them. We've gotten in a jam 4 before. All we can do is open that door and station 5 somebody there and put a fan in between it and steal 6 ventilation from the other side. 7 MR. MICHELSON: Does Staff include this in the 8 safety evaluation report? Do they evaluate loss of 9 ventilation and conclude it's okay? 10 MR. GRIMES: The status on the control room i 11 habitability issue defines this as an open issue, but it 12 finds that the compensatory measures the Licensee has () 13 described is adequate to allow the operation of the plant 14 until it's resolved. 15 So it's a topic to be addressed. 16 MR. MICHELSON: So it's still open. 17 DR. SHEWMON: Do you take it as your last slide, } 18 John, or do you have another one? 19 DR. BICKEL: This is my favorite one, and we can . 20 close. 21 (Slide.) 22 We are now in the position, and there's a little 23 bit of _sckeying going on. 24 DR. SHEWMON: It's a good brief slide. r (-) 25 (Laughter.) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
' 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 233MM6
3210 12 02 148 DAVbw 1 DR. BICKEL: Read that. It's a doozer. 2 But we've got an example here of man-rem. This 3 is not to point out that this is the absolute priority, 4 because, yes, of course, we consider other regs, but the 5 total rank, in terms of safety impact, this is wher'e we 6 stand on a lot of the ISAP issues. 7 If we put on one side, the NRC-initiated, the 8 other side are the ones we've initiated, and I want to point 9 out, this is not to say that we only concentrate on things 10 that would have big impacts. There's a difference. A lot 11 of the NRC-generated issues and projects that we're looking 12 at are based on generic concerns, some of which may touch on () 13 to something important in Millstone 1 and in some cases may 14 miss the mark. 15 The benefit of what we're doing is, when we have 16 a PRA specific to our plant, using our data, you know, we're 17 using that, we're pointing things that are unique to 18 Millstone 1, which, in some areas, seem to skirt around some 19 of the areas that are touched on by the Staff. We are 20 bolting in the things we feel are very important in terms of 21 safety. We're getting them on that list, and when we 22 eventually get an integrated schedule, it's going to reflect 23 what we think is the best bang for the buck, when we get 24 into the other schedule aspects. () 25 With that, I'll close. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 12 03 149 1 MR. WARD: One question.
}DAVbw 2 I want some information on that liquid chlorine 3 one. I think that's interesting. I want some information 4 on how you valuated that.
5 DR. BICKEL: What we have at Millstone is, I 6 believe, about a 90-ton tank car, Wayne. It's basically a 7 large railroad tank car, and it's brought in. It sits there 8 for about six months at a time, and it'c used to provide 9 chlorine through a small vaporizer system, to chlorinate all 10 our seawater systems to prevent, you know, mussel fouling, 11 and that kind of thing. What the PRA has essentially looked 12 at is the fouling. If that chlorine car should fail by () 13 something like a relief valve failing open or something 14 related to winds or anything like that, relieve, go open. 15 The likelihood of that is not beyond the incredible, what it 16 could do. 17 We modeled the thing, using a dispersion type 18 calculation, which is analogous to what's used when one 19 looks at the failure of a containment on which you release 20 somewhat energetically the contents of the gas on the 21 inside. We let it drift out. We calculated the doses to 22 the surrounding population, going out a couple miles. 23 If you look at the health effects you get from 24 that and work it back to an assumption about what is the () 25 equivalent, health damage of so many part.s per million ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 12 04 150 T'TDAVbw 1 chlorine against like a man-rem, you can fly up the scale. l
%.) l 2 You know, the dose response curves for radiation versus i 3 chlorine.
4 What we did then is, we essentially scaled the 5 health impact of that from chlorine back to man-rems. 6 The surprising thing we'd come up with is the fac 7 that we'd think that in our opinion that chlorine car is not 8 only a hazard to the plant personnel who might be subject, 9 and we've had a lot of experience with that, but we also 10 view it as a potential threat to the surrounding populace 11 around the site. 12 It's probably more likely than nuclear-related () 13 issues. I guess we weren't too surprised with it when it 14 \came out. We were a little surprised that it ranked kind of 15 high in the public safety impact. 16 MR. EBERSOLE: Is it under high pressure? 17 DR. BICKEL: It's liquid; yes. 18 MR. EBERSOLE: So it could destructively come 19 apart. 20 DR. BICKEL: I wouldn' t all it destructively. 21 MR. WARD: It's not real high pressure. 22 DR. SHEWMON: Even if it's under pressure at 100 23 degrees F, that's not great, is it? l 24 MR. EBERSOLE: So you run a truck into it. O) (. 25 DR. SHEWMON: But it probably won't explode at i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 12 05 151 1 a couple hundred pounds. ({]) DAVbw 2 MR. WARD: He's just talking about running it out 3 across the landscape as gas, poisoning people. 4 DR. SHEWMON: Are we ready for a break, 5 gentlemen? 6 Five minutes. 7 (Recess.) 8 DR. SHEWMON: Since they're five members here, 9 why don't we assume that's a quorum. 10 Go ahead, Mike. 11 MR. BOYLE: My name is Mike Boyle. I'm the 12 Integrated Safety Assessment Project Director. O (/ 13 I'd like to talk a little bit about ISAP. The 14 first subject is the evolution of the technical evaluation
- 15. programs at Millstone.
16 (Slide.) 17 In 1977, we started ISAP. The first phase of 18 that was determination of review topics. 137 topics were 19 evaluated against Millstone 1 in Phase 2. That was finished 20 in February '83, and this past week, the supplement to the 21 original integrated assessment was published. 22 (Slide.) 2:3 Concurrent with that -- 24 DR. SHEWMON: If I went through here, how many of l 25 those 137 would I find? i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. f 202-347-3700 ' Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 3210 12 06 152 1 MR. BOYLE: I'll get to it in just a moment. (~)DAVbw 2 DR. SHEWMON: Good. 3 (Slide.) 4 MR. BOYLE: Concurrent with that is the interim 5 reliability evaluation program, IREP. The beginning of that 6 was the determination of the methodology that was carried 7 back at Crystal River 3 that was conducted on four plants, 8 one of which is Millstone 1. That evaluation was finished 9 in 1983. 10 (Slide.) 11 SEP was originally supposed to be carried on in 12 '83 work. What was found out in Phase 2 was supposed to be s1 13 applied generically across-the-board to all plants. IREP 14 was also supposed to be carried out generically through 15 NREP, National Reliability Evaluation Program. 16 In lieu of that, the Staff chose an integrated 17 safety assessment program, which incorporated both the SEP 18 findings and IREP. Millstone originally requested to be in 19 ISAP in 1983, at the end of 1983. The Staff reviewed the 20 request, wrote a letter in April of '83 that stated it was 21 okay, pending the actual policy statement for ISAP being 22 issued. In that letter we gave them a deferral for certain i 23 issues that were pending for them to be included in ISAP. l l 24 In November '84, the policy statement was issued, (O_) 25 and shortly after that, in April '85, we started the l . l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 12 07 153 1 screening reviews for the issues to be included in ISAP and {)DAVbw 2 to scope out exactly what those issues we referred to. 3 DR. SHEWMON: Who wrote the letter you referred 4 to on December 28th? 5 MR. BOYLE: Northeast Utilities. 6 DR. SHEWMON: So you'd previously published the 7 letter, or how did you let it be known? 8 MR. BOYLE: For more than a year, there were 9 plans being issued to the Atomic Industrial Forum licensees 10 who asked for comments on Phase 3 of SEP. So they had been 1 11 duly noted. The licensees' final scope and description was , 12 submitted in May of '85. The Staff issued their final () 13 approval of that scope in July. 14 (Slide.) 15 The description of the ISAP program can be found 16 in the policy statement issued in November of '83, the 17 objective of which was to provide a stable environment to 18 evaluate all the licensing issues pending for a plant, 19 establish implementation' schedules, provide a basis for 20 updating the schedule and also provide a basis for 1 21 evaluating future regulatory actions at that facility. 22 Features of the program are that there is a 23 deterministic review of issues, those issues generally being 24 the ones generated from an SEP type review. There's also a ( 25 probabilistic review of those issues that lend themselves to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33666 4
- . . - ~ ,
- 3210 12 08 154 1 be review that way, plus from the PRA, there is a
)DAVbw I
2 possibility of new issues being raised, which can be 3 evaluated in ISAP. 4 We also do an operating experience review and 5 from that, more issues can be generated. From these three 6 areas, the licensee will then perform an integrated i 7 assessment of all issues raised. I j 8 Decisions on the corrective action are based on a 9 qualitative assessment of value impacts. The licensing 10 proposal evaluated by the Staff can be either approved or 11 disapproved or make further recommendations. 12 Following that, the licensee submits an () 13 implemenation schedule, and we review it and approve it and 4 14 attach that implementation schedule to the license and also 15 in the license, we provide procedures for updating that 16 schedule. 17 (Slide.) 18 The next slide is just a general schematic of 19 what I've just been talking about. It's not too terribly 20 worth talking about, unless you have some specific 21 questions. , 22 MR. MICHELSON: Is this an ongoing thing on a i 1 23 given plan, or'is it kind of a one-shot in time study:or -l 24 what? k) 25 MR. BOYLE: In the beginning, it will be a l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646 ,
I 3210 12 09 155 1 1 one-time shot. We'll do the whole review. (}DAVbw 2 But in essence, once the implementation schedule 3 has been set up, there will be a formal updating of it.- 4 MR. MICHELSON: From time to time? I see. 5 Okty. Thank you. C MR. BOYLE: I had spoken previously, in April of 7 last year we started screening a review of the issues. The 8 issues come from basically three places, the ones that we 9 have initiated. Those are the pending licensee 10 re quirements . The second being the licensees' own 11 initiatives. The third being those requirements that aren't 12 yet pending on the licensees, such as unresolved safety () 13 issues or maybe some TMI action type items that have a , 14 basic technical resolution to them but haven' t been 15 implemented across-the-board yet. 16 We took everything in those three categories and 17 came up with a list of items that will be implemented or 18 evaluated in ISAP. 19 , (Slide.) 20 This first list are those issues that came from 21 the NRC. You can see way down at the bottom, number 1.47 is 22 containment emergency sump performance. Something we were 23 talking about before. A-4 3 hasn' t been issued yet. We are 24 taking a look at it in the context. 25 MR. GRIMES: I'd like to point out -- I think I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 12 10 156 l TN DAVbw 1 mentioned earlier, the results of A-43 were just recently d 2 published in the Generic Letter, 85-22, I believe it was. 3 So there's some more information that we can throw into that 4 topic today. 5 I think it's important for the committee to 6 recognize that this lists all of the issues that we could 7 find pending on this plant. And in the context of the 8 license conversion, one of the things that we have to do is 9 describe the status of pending TMI action plan requirements, 10 generic issues, unresolved safety issues, and what has not 11 yet been completed from SEP. 12 So this list is comprehensive in that respect and () 13 is a summary of all the information that we would find, both 14 in the Supplement to our Integrated Plan Safety Assessment 15 Report from SEP and in the licensed conversion SER NUREG 16 1143. 17 DR. SHEWMON: What is the basis for the numbering
- 18 on the left?
19 MR. BOYLE: It's just the way they fell out. 20 DR. SHEWMON: On the right, the decision was that 21 they didn't think they were all worthy of a score? 22 MR. BOYLE: I was just going to get to that. The 23 score on the right is the PSA score that the licensee 24 determined. Those issues which the licensee, and we felt, () 25 lent themselves to being scored through a risk assessment, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 12 11 157 DAVbw 1 were all evaluated. Those were the only ones from the one 2 list that we thought could be evaluated. Things like FSAR 3 update is very hard to evaluate. 4 The evaluations were done in three different 5 ways. The first way was by a quantitative calculation. The 6 second by engineering judgment and the third happens to be a 7 nonradiological risk, like a chlorine tank car. 8 And on the next slide, the chlorine tank car came 9 out very high. 10 MR. WARD: Is it the duty of the NRC to protect 11 the public from that sort of risk? 12 MR. GRIMES: That will be an interesting feature () 13 of this program, because we have no statutory authority in a 14 number of these areas, but the Commission has made it clear 15 that in determining implementation schedules, the Staff 16 should look at the distribution of licensees' resources. 17 So if you recall, in the integrated assessment 18 for Big Rock Point, we had expanded the scope of our review 19 to address some of the licensee's initiatives, and we tried j 20 to make some comment about the significance of those 21 relative to other plant improvements that the licensee had 22 in mind. 23 MR. EBERSOLE: Could you extrapolate to show that i I 24 the major water treatment plant in this city would be more l t%.
's_) 25 hazardous than the reactor plant?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 3210 12 12 158 1 MR. BOYLE: I'm not going to touch that! ()DAVbw 2 (Laughter.) i 3 DR. SHEWMON: Onward. i
, 4 (Slide.)
5 MR. BOYLE: The second list of issues were those 2 6 which were Northeast Utilities-originated. 1 7 One of the things that came out of the PSA review 8 was the long-term cooling study. That came out ranked as 9 tenth. These are all preliminary rankings, which nobody has 10 passe. judgment on as of yet. i 11 (Slide.) t 12 The third list I'm going to put up are items that () 13 the utility is going to complete.in the interim before ISAP 14 is completed. They would still have a full workload to do 15 it at the plant. 16 (Slide.) 17 The ultimate result of ISAP is going to be an ! 18 integrated schedule. The priorities are going to be i 19 established and an-integrated assessment on the basis of the 20 integrated schedule, and we will develop the schedule on the 1 21 procedure updated, and we will assume that the general 22 policy for integrated schedules is going to look very much 23 like what we're doing here. 24 That's all I have on ISAP itself. 25 Du you have any questions? f 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
3210 12 13 159
/"]DAVbw 1 DR. SHEWMON: I feel that I haven't done a good V
2 job as Chairman, because I've never quite been able to get 3 my arms around what's unresolved and what's resolved. And 4 every time I asked, I'm told we have a schedule and we agree 5 on it -- I think. 6 Could you tell me whether you think ISAP is going 7 to allow some of these things to be dropped as no, never 8 minds, or do we -- 9 MR. BOYLE: I think that's a possibility. 10 DR. SHEWMON: Or do we have to wait another 25 11 years while they operate the plant? 12 MR. BOYLE: There's a possibility that ISAP will () 13 show that certain things should be implemented or we will i 14 score something down at the bottom of the list and it will 15 never get up to the top of the list.
; 16 I think that's one of the features of ISAP. They 17 would put everything on the schedule and have it done at 18 some point.
19 ISAP may determine that something need not be 20 done at all. It's just not worth doing at the plant. I 21 22 23 l l 24 i ' /~T
% ,) 25 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 6646
i 1 3210 13 01 160 I'TDAVbur 1 DR. SHEWMON: Does that correspond roughly to a ' V 2 score of zero in this? 3 MR. BOYLE: I think it is more like a minus 10. 4 DR. SHEWMON: Minus 10 is the lowest anything can 5 get? 6 MR. BOYLE: We haven't looked that far. 7 MR. GRIMES: Dr. Shewmon, as this is the first 8 plant in this program, we have not experienced yet what we 9 could establish as criteria for a threshold like that. 10 I would like to point out that in the supplement 11 to the SEP report we have identified some of the things that 12 we recommended for further evaluation subsequently resulted ( 13 in no corrective action required. 14 DR. SHEWMON: Where do I find a summary of that? 15 MR. GRIMES: In that table. 16 DR. SHEWMON: Table 2? 17 MR. GRIMES: Yes, where it identifies the action 18 resulting from the supplement. 19 When we originally did the integrated assessment 20 to Millstone Unit 1, there were a number of issues that we 21 concluded required no further action based on their 22 significance. 23 DR. SHEWMON: So where the heading says l 24 requirement from supplement and the entry says none, that l (~h
\J 25 means the issue has been dropped?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
3210 13 02 161 g*~'NDAVbur 1 MR. GRIMES: That is correct. (-) ; 2 That means -- again, in the text of that report l 3 it describes what further evaluation was done following SEP, 4 and the conclusion that no further action beyond that is 5 required. In other cases it identifies hardware 6 modifications-or procedural changes. 7 on this ISAP list of issues there are four -- 8 excuse me -- five topics from SEP that are left over that 9 the licensee in the course of 1983, when he requested this i
'10 ISAP review for everything else -- until today they have s 11 postponed any further action on those things until they can 4
12 be reevaluated in the context of the overall list of () 13 issues. 14 One of the fundamental tenets of this program is 15 that our routine in the past has been that as fast as we 16 resolve issues new issues come up. We pointed out to the 17 subcommittee that when we first proposed the ISAP concept in 18 1983 the average number of pending licensing actions per 19 operating reactor was 49. 20 In 1985, when we finally got the program off the 21 ground, the average number of pending licensing actions is 22 50. 23 That is statistically insignificant. It means we 24 have a constant level of work in this process. () 25 We hope that when we come back to you with the l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 - Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
A 3210 13 03 162 1 results of ISAP for Millstone that we will identify all the [V~gDAVbur 2 actions they need to do for a number of years, so that they 3 are essentially caught up and ahead of the game in terms of 4 making whatever plant improvements are necessary. 5 That was one of the reasons that Mr. Denton 6 decided he would rather have ISAP than a Phase III of SEP. 7 DR. SHEWMON: Let me come back then to this list 8 that might just show this. 9 Those items are then TMI-2 and USI's basically? 10 MR. GRIMES: Yes, sir. If you will look at the 11 topic source, you will see the first five come from SEP. 12 7 to 13 came from NUREG-0737, which is the TMI
-( ) 13 action plan. A number of regulatory requirements are 14 identified. Some more SEP stuff related to electrical 15 equipment. That really is combined, SEP plus pending 16 licensing requirements, the Salem ATWS requirements.
17 And then at the bottom of the list you will find 18 generic issues for which we hope to get a resolution before 19 they result generically. 20 DR. SHEWMON: What is the NUREG-0933? 21 MR. GRIMES: That is the prioritization of 22 generic issues that the staff did to identify how the 23 resources should be applied. 24 MR. EBERSOLE: When will we be able to look at () 25 the ISAP program in a generic context from the other ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6
.3210 13 04 163 1 plants? Do you know what the status of it is?
)DAVbur 2 I am really not talking about the ISAP program at 3 large.
4 MR. GRIMES: I am sorry, I don't understand the 5 question. 6 MR. EBERSOLE: There is only one other plant 7 doing an ISAP? 8 MR. GRIMES: Yes, sir. Haddam Neck. 9 MR. EBERSOLE: Where do they stand? 10 MR. GRIMES: They are doing the probabilistic 11 risk assessment analysis right now. They plan to submit it 12 to us in the spring of '86, and we hope to have its () 13 integrated assessment complete by next fall. 14 DR. SHEWMON: I think he imagines that there 15 indeed is a commitment on somebody's part to do ISAP for 16 another couple of plants. 17 Is that commitment made? 18 MR. GRIMES: No, sir. The Commission told us 19 that we could have the resources to do two plants in a pilot 20 program. We are scheduled to go back to them in January to 21 describe the status. I would expect that af ter we finish 22 Millstone's review we would make a recommendation to the 23 Commission on how they should proceed with ISAP. 24 MR. EBERSOLE: One of the shortfalls of these () 25 programs has been: as the owner-operators do the program ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4 646
3210 13 05 164 1 they begin to pinch up the plants online as they do it, and [')DAVbur V 2 thus the importance of the particular program is 3 diminished. 4 Do you follow me? As they find problems, they. 5 fix them, and so they don't show up in the final means? 6 MR. GRIMES: In this case we presented two 7 different lists. One list identifies the things he is going 8 to work on right now. All these other things he is not 9 going to work on until we have decided what to do in an 10 integrated sense. He is not going to do patchwork. 11 MR. EBERSOLE: Even in the early PRAs, they do 12 certain improvements in the plant which tend to diminish the () 13 value of ISAP. 14 DR. SHEWMON: I don't know if it decreases the 15 value if they indeed did it. We have got good accountants. 16 Who is next then? 17 I find basically Bain. 18 (Slide.) 19 DR. KERR: Mr. Secretary-Chairman, are we on 20 schedule? 21 DR. SHEWMON: We are closer than we were now.
- 22 DR. KERR: Just curious.
23 MR. BAIN: Good afternoon. My name is Mike 24 Bain. I am going to spend a few minutes talking about the n 4 (_) 25 integrated safety assessment program, the way that we are ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 3210 13 06 165 1 applying a certain aspect of it at Northeast. (')'DAVbur ( 2 A little bit earlier you heard John Bickel give a 3 description of what he called the public safety impact 4 model. He gave a similar talk at the subcommittee meeting 5 that we had up in Millstone in November, and we were 6 requested to give a very brief overview of some of the other 7 characteristics that we were going to be looking at in the 8 project prioritization process. 9 (Slide.) 10 I think this should only take about five 11 minutes. I am just going to kind of race through it. 12 Please interrupt me if you want to ask a question. () 13 DR. SHEWMON: Don't offer them an invitation. 14 (Laughter.) 15 MR. BAIN: Again, you heard Mike also talk about 16 some of the other elements of the ISAP program. I am going 17 to focus just on project prioritization. 18 We see that as about the most important aspect of 19 the ISAP program. We have a need to prioritize all of our 20 projects on a common scale, be they project regulatory 21 initiated or plant betterment projects that we have 22 initiated on our own. 23 That is essential for effective resource-24 management if we want to achieve our goal of getting the () 25 most benefit achieved for a certain amount of resources ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
3210 13 07 166 ("TDAVbur 1 expended.
%)
2 The methodology that we developed for 3 prioritization must recognize the importance of 4 utility-initiated improvements on the scale that John put,up 5 at the end of his talk on the public safety impact model. 6 We saw several of our own projects which ranked 7 pretty high up on the public safety impact scale. I think 8 we need a little bit of recognition that some of these 9 projects that we have initiated on our own can have benefits 10 not only in the area of economics or reliability but also in 11 public safety. 12 Therefore, the attributes and the characteristics () 13 that we elect to look at for each individual project must 14 encompass all the relevant factors that you need for good 15 decisionmaking and prioritization. 16 of course, nuclear safety is the one that John 17 talked about in much more detail, and that is the first, but 18 certainly not the only consideration that we have. 19 (Slide.) 20 We selected five attributes to evaluate all of 21 our projects against: public safety, personnel safety, 22 economic performance, personnel productivity, and external 23 impacts. 24 We are just going to give a brief summary of what () 25 each of those involves. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
3210 13 08 167
-(') DAVbur 1 (Slide.)
V 2 Public safety. The public safety attribute was 3 broken down into three characteristics: radioactive 4 material releases fr5m the plant, core damage accidents, 5 hazardous nonradioactive material releases from the plant, 6 such as chlorine, and then the third one is one that we 7 envision possibly utilizing in the future, although we have 8 no application for it now, and that would be hazards in 9 transportation accidents offsite. 10 As John discussed, we measured the impact of 11 individual projects on public safety, utilizing the PSS 12 results where they could be applied and utilizing () 13 engineering judgment where they cannot. 14 (Slide.) 15 Personnel safety is the second attribute, and 16 there was a question on that earlier. This is where we 17 account for the occupational radiation exposure, the two 18 characteristics being that and industrial safety 19 considerations. 20 Occupation exposure includes both installation 21 and recurring exposures for maintenance or surveillance, 22 whatever. In this area the impact on personnel safety is 23 measured by a combination of quantitative and qualitative 24 factors. _) 25 For instance, man / rem estimates for evaluation ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(b336 6646
3210 13 09 168 1 of jobs is done at a point in the point design change {}DAVbur 2 process. We have ALARA goals within the company that will 3 apply a dollar value per man / rem that we can utilize. 4 In the industrial safety area we know what it 5 costs for a lost workday of an industrial accident. 6 Statistics like that are pretty well documented. That is 7 the kind of impacts we have used to measure impact on 8 personnel safety. 9 (Slide.) 10 We also look at economic performance. We have 11 broken that down into four characteristics: effects on 12 plant availability, plant efficiency, electrical output, () 13 which would be secondary, site derating, and core power 14 rating, primary site rating. 15 To help measure the impact in this area, we 16 developed plant-specific reliability models which you might 17 characterize as a PRA of the power conversion system. It is 18 again specific to Millstone 1, so we have got a pretty 19 quantitative tool to measure the impacts of individual 20 design changes on whether it is megawatt-hours produced per 21 year or whatever scale we decide to adopt for projects that 22 you can quantitatively evaluate. 23 Similar to the problems we have with PSS, we 24 utilize engineering judgment. (3 (,/ 25 (Slide.) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 33 & 6646
.- . . . = - _ _ - . .__- . -- . - . . .- .-. . . - _ .
3210 13 10 169 1 The fourth attribute is personnel productivity. (])DAVbur 2 That is broken down into three characteristics: 3 The effects of individual design changes on ; 4 people, whether that means it is going to make an individual i 5 operator's job easier or whether a new piece of equipment is , 1 j 6 going to require staff increases in the INC department to 7 accommodate survellance,. testing, or maintenance, whatever. j 8 The ef fects that new equipment or tools will have i 9 on the ability of an individual to do his job and changes in 10 the individual's work environment.
- 11 If there's improved cooling systems in the dry i
12 wells to make a much more mild environment so the workers f 13 can increase their productivity in that area, and that le i 14 pretty much going to be measured by subjective judgment. j 15 There may be a few cases where we will have quantitative - 16 data available to utilize. 17 (Slide.) 18 The fifth attribute is the external impacts ! 19 attribute. i l 20 As you see at the bottom, this is entirely
- 21 subjective. We broke that down into four characteristics 1
! 22 that we as a company also have to be concerned about. That i 23 -is actions of the NRC, actions of state and local I _ 24 governments and agencies, which we also have to deal with, i j 25 other federal regulatory agencies, and the actions of i, I- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
,.2 "3"-37? /**M EN .._ _ "3M _ . _ ._ _ . . _. .
3210 13 11 170 1 industry organizations such as INPO. ()DAVbur 2 (Slide.) 3 Very briefly, the way that we are going to be 4 using the impact measurements of these five attributes is 5 the five individual attribute scores would be combined. 6 What that would give you is essentially a total net value of 7 doing an individual project, and the basis for our ranking 8 of projects or the prioritization of projects would then be 9 the total sum value from the five attributes divided by the 10 remaining cost to complete implementation of the project. 11 Then we take those prioritized results, and we 12 factor them into our scheduling tools. That is where we 13 would factor in resource constraints and manpower 14 limitations during an outage, whether or not individual 15 projects can be done during an outage or during operation. 16 The end result will be the integrated schedule. 17 Then the last slide that I had in the handout -- 18 and I apologize, I don't have an overhead slide for it -- 19 but it showed a figure very similar to the one that John had 20 shown earlier, talking about the public safety impact 21 model. 22 I very briefly just wanted to touch on that. The 23 box down at the bottom shows the ISAP process. Those five 24 arrows are the five different attributes feeding into the 1 (d s 25 one process, with three possible end results: l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 ' Nationwide Coverase 800-336-6646
l l 3210 13 12 171 l ()DAvbur 1 One is you decide an issue has scme amount of 2 merit and it is worth further study, but you haven' t quite 3 refined what seems to be the optimal fix for it. So that is 4 a factor we threw back in for further analysis. 5 The second is you decide you have got the right 6 design change and you go ahead and implement it. 7 And the third option is, as you see in the 8 figure, it is supposed to be the implementation of a trash 9 can.. 10 That just means the project has no merit. It 11 could be scored zero on all of its attributes, and there is 12 really no point in pursuing it further. 13 That is where you get out of a loop, and that is 14 the end of that individual project. 15 (Slide.)
- l 16 The last element of the program that we have to 17 say is really still under development, certainly with some 18 amount of active involvement, is the consideration of
, 19 financial risk. We recognized the onsite costs, converted 20 onsite costs, could be significant. 21 The current models; that is, the five attributes 22 I have just described, don't explicitly consider financial 23 risk. l 24 The best I can say is that we are still 25 evaluating it. It has been discussed an awful lot, and we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. E9)@7-D700 , N! ion @ Com 800-336-6646
3210 13 13 172 i ()DkVbur 1 don't have an answer yet, although we are trying to find a 2 rational, reasonable way that we can consider it. 3 MR. EBERSOLE: May I ask a question? 4 Since you have got these 3 units so near 5 together, if one of them goes to the ultimate state of 6 disarray will it carry the other two with it because people 7 can't stand around and operate the plant then? 8 I am talking about financial risk now, as well as 9 multiplying by 3 the consequence of something going at one 10 plant? 11 DR. BICKEL: Obviously, yes, we looked at that in 12 terms of one area we touched on, control room habitability. 13 What we would point out is that Unit 3 has the 14 latest and greatest control room habitability. That is just 15 built in from the way it is designed. So an accident at 16 Unit 1 is not going to propagate a Unit 3 accident. 17 MR. EBERSOLE: Even if you lose the containment? 18 DR. BICKEL: On Millstone 17 19 MR. EBERSOLE: Yes. 20 DR. BICKEL: What I am trying to say is that you 21 would have the ability to shut it down if you had an 22 accident. 23 Going the other way around, yes, there is a 24 problem with Unit 1. O 25 MR. EBERSOLE: You mean to shut it down and keep ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202 347-3700 Nationwide Og_________ __ __ 800 336-6646 l
3210 13 14 173 1 it from melting? ()DAVbur 2 DR. BICKEL: That is correct. 3 MR. EBERSOLE: So it is really kind of a mixed 4 bag, then? 5 DR. BICKEL: That is correct. It is a reflection 6 of the ages of the licenses. 7 But the thing that I do believe has to be kept in 8 mind, though, is that those units in general -- like 9 Millstone 1, if there were an accident of another unit you 10 could put it on the isolation condenser. You don't have to 11 do very much. 12 MR. EBERSOLE: Because of the fact of that 13 particular design you could run up and leave it a while? 14 DR. BICKEL: That is correct. I 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336M46 , , .
a 3210 09 01 174 DAVbw 1 MR. EBERSOLE: I know some plants you can't do 2 that with. 3 DR. SHEWMON: Any other questions here? 4 MR. BAIN: That's the end of my presentation. I 5 think I stuck pretty close to my estimate. i 6 DR. SHEWMON: Thank you. Mike? 7 MR. BOYLE: One thing I should bring up for your 8 future consideration, a long list of topics I gave you, 9 starting on page 31 of this handout or a short one or two { 10 sentence description of them, you might want to take a look i 11 at in the future. A longer description will take place in a 12 month or so, when the SER comes out on all tilese issues. () 13 What I'd like to talk about now is the status of j 14 the systematic evaluation program. , 15 I think we can, for the sake of argument, skip 16 the first slide, because it's one you just saw a few minutes 17 ago. 18 (Slide.) i' 19 The second one is a slide that's near and dear to 20 bureaucrats hearts, and that's the bean count. 21 (Slide.) 22 (Laughter.) 23 This is one you'd asked on earlier. Of the 137 24 topics in SEP, 86 were directly relevant to Millstone 1 and () 25 were evaluated. 48 of those topics specifically met the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
l 3210 09 02 175 DAVbw 1 criteria from the start. .
/ 2 Of the 38 that didn't --
l 3 DR. SHEWMON: You said "thereafter" that there 4 were no never minds or what? 5 MR. BOYLE: No. We evaluated them and the i 6 acceptance criteria in those topics were satisfied at the 7 plant, the way the plant is now. 8 MR. GRIMES: Another way to put that is that the 9 plant is equivalent to current criteria in its design. 10 MR. BOYLE: In those 38 topics, there were 89 11 explicit items, where they weren't equivalent to current i ! 12 criteria. Notice 89 topics were addressed at the IPSAR, O 13 nuaco o894. 14 of them we thouaht re2=tred herdwere 14 modifications. 10 were tech spec or procedure changes. 41 1 j 15 were still in further evaluation. A large number were 16 seismic issues. 24 had no requirements or they were 17 complete. Complete meaning, if we recommend a hardware tech l 18 spec or procedure change or something, they'd already done 19 that by the time IPSAR was published. 20 And to supplement then, in Table 2.1 of the i 21 Supplement, the taking of 24 issues off the 89, let 65. 22 There were now 17 hardware modifications, which some of the t i 23 ones one further evaluation, we saw now needed further 24 modifications. All the tech spec procedure changes were
- O 25 done from the inittele, except fer one. 23 were seil1 I
4 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS,'INC.
- 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage ~ 800 33H646
4 3210 09 03 176 DAVbw 1 undergoing evaluation. 24 had been resolved, so that they 2 either met the criteria or the tech spec procedure change. 3 Hardware modifications had already been done. 4 That is basically the status. Some of these are
- 5 still going to be resolved outside ISAP. Some part of them 6 have been carried into ISAP and will still be evaluated.
J 7 The things like seismic issues or other issues will be 8 prioritized and the completion of them will be determined in i 9 ISAP. I 10 On pages 19 of 30 of this handout is a short 11 description of those items that are still open from the l. 12 IPSAR. That's Table 2.1 of the IPSAR Supplement you have in i () 13 front of you. j 14 MR. GRIMES: I'd like to point out that we ; 15 reproduced that table, because there was some uncertainty i 16 about whether or not the publisher of the supplement was 17 going to make it on time. f 18 I want to apologize to the committee for i 19 delivering the final version of the report a day before the 2 20 meeting. 21 MR. BOYLE: You got it within an hour of being -l 22 published. 23 (Slide.) 24 This is just a list of those hardware ] () 25 modifications that are still open in that IPSAR supplement. i i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800-33H6M
__ _. = . _ . _ m _ . ___ ._ _ _ 1 3210 09 04 177 DAVbw 1 I don't know if you have any questions. 2 DR. SHEWMON: What page is that on? 3 MR. BOYLE: This is on page 12. 4 MR. EBERSOLE: Where was that independent
, 5 interlock, low to high pressure?
6 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 7 MR. EBERSOLE: So it rode along a long time with i 8 the nonindependent? 9 MR. BOYLE: I think I have a slide of that here. 10 DR. SHEWMON: That's the interlock of what, 11 Jesse? 12 MR. EBERSOLE: The high-to-low-pressure systems, () 13 you know, the Event B. 14 DR. SHEWMON: Right. . 1
- 15 (Slide.)
16 MR. BOYLE: This is SEP Topic 511(a), Isolation
, 17 from High to Low Pressure Systems. The SEP review found l
18 that the RWCU system did not have independent and diverse 19 interlocks. We gave them two options, either demonstrate
- 20 adequate relief capacity or put in the hardware necessary
! i 21 into compliance. 22 The licensee and the integrated assessment for . 23 ICP opted right out to do the hardware modification. 24 Sitting back after a little while, the initial part of the () 25 ISAP formulation, they said, well, maybe that's really not ! ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee 800 336 6646
3210 09 05 178 l l DAVbw 1 so smart. Maybe we ought to go back and take a look and see 2 if we really do have the relief capacity. 3 That's the issue being evaluated right now in 4 ISAP is whether the actual hardware modification needs to be l 5 done, and if so, when. ' 6 MR. EBERSOLE: You haven't done it then yet. 7 MR. BOYLE: No. 8 DR. SHEWMON: And if there is enough relief 9 capacity, they won't. 10 MR. EBERSOLE: Is that based on the valves 11 opening wide? If so, there's bound to be insufficient 12 relief. i 13 MR. GRIMES: Mr. Ebersole, could I observe, this (]) 14 issue is common to all three BWRs, and I think that when we 15 presented the results of the SEP review for Millstone, we 16 noted that the licensee in this case was unique, in that [ 17 they had proposed to put in an interlock with the other two ! 18 plants and proposed to demonstrate relief capacity. 19 MR. EBERSOLE: May I ask this question? Can the 20 valves actually physically open against a DP that would 21 cause problems? ; 22 MR. BOYLE: That is something that the licensee ! t 23 will have to evaluate. We haven't done that yet. i 24 DR. MOELLER: The scuppers on the roof simply () 25 keep the water from cooling; is that the idea? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33HM6
. _ - _ . _ _ . - ___ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - , - _ . _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ . _ . _ - _ - - _ - _ . . ~- _._, ,
1 i 3210 09 06 179 , f DAVbw 1 MR. BOYLE: That's right. And keeping the 3 2 building intact, the room intact. 3 I believe those may have already been installed. j 4 DR. MOELLER: And the buildings for 1 were j 5 different than 2 and 3? ! i MR. BOYLE:
~
i 6 Yes. 7 (Slide.) j 8 The next very short list was the tech spec on l 9 battery outage limits, which we wanted to have done. 10 (Slide.) ] 1
- 11 The last being, these are the issues that are I 12 still under further evaluation. Some of which, in fact, all i
I () 13 of which are being evaluated in ISAP. r j 14 MR. GRIMES: On this slide, I'd like to point out i 15 that while we discuss them in terms of the overall issues, j 16 for example, on wind loads, most of the analysis to f 17 demonstrate adequate capacity for the structures has been 18 completed. What is left is a residual lack of capability ! 19 and consequences to suggest the need for a dedicated l 20 cooling train to protect vulnerable equipment to missiles. i 21 So we've boiled it down to a much narrower issue than we i I
; 22 originally had when we presented the results of SEP.
23 So in terms of numbers of issues, it's actually 24 larger than the actions that need to be taken. , f 1 () 25 DR. SHEWMON: Just one other thing I might i i i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coversee M336 #46
3210 09 07 180 1 comment. When I went up there, one of the questions I was 7~}DAVbw
\/
2 charged with checking was, how about hurricanes coming in 3 off the water and dumping the system? When we got there, I 4 was told that they once tried to keep the plant going when a 5 hurricane came and damaged the equipment enough, so that the 6 next time one came, they sort of had a man watching. When 7 things started arcing over, they just shut down gracefully. 8 So that is one issue that didn't come up. 9 DR. MOELLER: The last one, 95, on ventilation, 10 referring to 4.32.1, what is the ventilation for the core 11 spray and LPCI systems? 12 Is that pump rooms or what? () 13 MR. GRIMES: Yes, sir. That's pump room 14 ventilation. That was the issue previously discussed with 15 respect to the initial start-up tests that they had where 16 they demonstrated that the pumps would function at the 17 temperature that they would reach if the ventilation system 18 failed. 19 MR. EBERSOLE: Do you have hydrogen ventilation , 20 out of the battery rooms? 21 MR. GRIMES: Yes. That was one of the things we 22 previously addressed. 23 DR. SHEWMON: Onward. 24 MR. BOYLE: That completes the SEP status. () 25 Shall I go on to the next item? ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 370l) Nationwide Coverage RA))&MM
3210 09 08 181 1 DR. SHEWMON: Yes. ()DAVbw 2 (Slide.) 3 MR. BOYLE: I was going to give a short talk 4 about the POL conversion SER consequences. 5 The scope of the SER is made up of three parts, 6 that's addressing all the plant design changes that have 7 taken place over the years. 8 The new regulatory requirements, which have been 9 issued since the plant came on line, and most of those were 10 addressed in one form or another in the SEP review. 11 The last is the status of generic items having to 12 do with TMI action plans items and USIs. They are also 0'4 13 addressed in one* form or another in ISAP. 14 The content of the SER, the technical input, was 15 mainly based on the findings from SEP, the format follows 16 that generally that you can see for OL licenses recently. 17 j Appendix B of the report and Appendix C talk about TMI 18 action plan items and the status of USIs and, basically, 19 gave ALAB 444 writeups for justifying continued operation 20 until some of these have boon resolved or depleted. 21 And a supplomont to this SER will be issed, once 22 the ACRS has sont us their letter or their comments on the 23 conversion process, and wo have addressed any open items 24 that you may havo raised. U 25 (Sildo.) ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. r%P374RT1 N m. m. _ __
3210 09 09 182 1 Also addressed in the SER is the operating b"")DAVbw 2 experience in SEP and again in ISAP. We have taken a look 3 at operating experience from the day the plant was started 4 up until, I believe, the end of 1984. And the report 5 conclusions said there are basically no continuing major 6 challenges to that safety. 7 And as you've seen before, the availability t 8 capacity factors are above average for the industry and 9 there are a relatively small number of significant 10 reportable events, as you can see by the number of LERs that 1 11 have been issued.' And the majority of the operating 12 experience problems have been random events. () 13 The licensee has had an opportunity to review 14 . this report, both in SEP and in ISAP. 15 , (Slide.) 1 16 We took a look at the operating experience and 17 found there were some trends in data, not all of which are 18 continuing. 19 The first three basically stopped. These are 20 items that have occurred more than once over the life of the 21 plant. Sometimes quite a few times, you can see. 22 Any questions? 23 MR. MOELLER: The marine life in number 3, is 24 this due to an inadvertent release or simply () 25 bioaccumulation? 1 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Nanonwkle Coverage *1034fM6 l 202 347 3700 l
3210 09 10 183 1 MR. BOYLE: I'm not exactly sure. (()DAVbw 2 , DR. KERR: There was certainly radioactivity if i 3' the marine life came from this plant. 4 MR. BOYLE: Wayne? 5i MR. ROMBERG I can't be certain it came from 6j this plant. It came from the site. I think it's reasonable 7} 1 to say that in the early days, we were observant of 8' discharges from Unit 1, and we probably discharged 9 significant quantities, not above limit, but significant 10 quantities. Right now there's about zero discharge. 11 Unit 2 is a little bit higher. From time to 12 time, we get some steam generator tube leaks, and Unit No. 2 O k/ 13 is not real good right now, but that's loss than a problem 14 than it used to be. 15 DR. MOELLER: What is the main nuclido? Is it 16 cobalt, cosium or what? 17 MR. ROMBERG It would have to do with the 18 report. 19 MR. BAIN Excuse me. I can't speak to the 20 details of it, but our comments on the draft report, it's 21 l referenced here, and we can provido you a copy of it. That 22 gave a pretty detailed explanation of the causes of the 23 .ncreases in buildup. The only thing that I recall is that 24 they woro predominantely short-lived isotopes. I believe it O \/ 25 wis the refined measuring capability. !!ad it boon a ACE. FEDERAL R*iPORTERS, INC. J 3 2 4E D __ _____ __Cttonm_____. ______ CDOC"3_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3210 09 11 184 1 long-te rm build-up, it wouldn't have been those isotopes. (JTDAVbw 2 We can provido you with a copy of that 3 explanation. 4 MR. EBERSOLE: Since you're getting down to a 5 pretty find detail here, I want to ask about the SRVs. 6 These are the kinds of valves that have individual storago 7 cylinders for maintaining supply of air, in the event the 8 nonsafety grade air supply is lost; right? 9 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. 10 MR. EBERSOLE: Then I have to ask the standard 11 question of you. 12 Due to the capacity of the standard supply system () 13 to override the presence of leaks so you never soo them, how 14 do you know that your accumulators aren't leaking all the 15 time, and when you finally lose the standard supply system, 1 16 l that you'll blood off and have no air to open these critical 17 valvos? 18 MR. ROMBERG: Wo survey them on a periodic outage 19 basis. 20 MR. EBERSOLE: Do you do a blood down when 21 there's no air supply incoming? 22 MR. ROMBERG Yes, wo do. 23 MR. EBERSOLE: Thank you. 24 MR. BOYLE: The last slido I have is a summary of () 25 the SALP ratings for the licensoo at Millstone. ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase m34W4
3210 09 12 185 i DAVbw 1 (Slide.) l l 2 You actually have to read from right to left, l 1 1 3 timewise. The initial SALP ratings, they didn't have ! 4 the number scoring system, and they also didn't address all 5 the items that they do today, but overall, the findings are f i 6 that the licensee is doing a very good, conscientious job of ( 7 running this utility, which can be seen in the availability ; 8 f actors and in the report numbers. 9 DR. MOELLER: What does the bottom line refer to? 10 What are licensing activities? 11 MR. BOYLE: I believe that's just -- l 12 DR. MOELLER: -- how well they keep up with () 13 responses? ! 14 MR. GRIMES: It's the licensee's ability to 15 interact with headquarters in Bethesda. 16 (Laughter.) . l. 17 MR. BOYLE: That's our input to the SALP ratings, i 18 as opposed to regional. ! 19 DR. KERR Does the Staf f actually propose to j t 20 continue that particular rating? I would think that by now, 21 they would perceive the ridiculousness of that one and drop 22 it gracefully. ! l l 23 MR. GRIMES: Mr. Denton is asking SES to serve on l 24 SALP boards to try to provide a more integrated overview, () 25 rather than to distinguish just the ability of the licensee i i ! l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nasionwide Coveraos 200 3)Hn44
. 3210 09 13 186 ; i : DAVbw 1 to react to a phone call. 2 We're making efforts to make the SALP process i 3 more of an integrated review rather than an office review. 4 DR. SHEWMON: There's the frustration of somebody ] ! 5 who won't answer your phone calls, I have to admit. l , 6 (Laughter.) i ) 7 Are there any other questions for Mike? 8 MR. WARD: I think that they'd rather show one
! 9 item rather than having it buried in all the others.
f i 10 (No response.) 11 DR. SHEWMON: Thank you, Mike. 12 MR. GRIMES: Dr. Shewmon, I'd like to make just a l l 13 closing remark, and that is, we'vo talked a lot today about 14 ISAP, as it relates to the license conversion. That's i } 15 primarily because a lot of the activity and the status of a i , i 16 number of the issues I know that this committee is l j i 17 interested in are being dealt with there. ! i 18 I don't want you to think that every time we come
- i l 19 back with the rest of the license conversions we're going to i 4
l 20 have an ISAP, because we won't. There was a toss-up of j 21 whether or not we would come to the committee with Millstone ! i 22 or Palisades or Dresden, because the SEP reviews of those ] 23 plants were all relatively complete. Wo did Millstone f i 24 'primarily because our efforts of lato have been focused on O 25 that piant. So it was ame1v in that respect. ! l i i ! ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. * ! 202.M71700 NaskmeWe Comage NB))4MW4 f
3210 09 14 187 DAVbw 1 The status of the SEP actions and the status of f l 2 the TMI actions and USI issues are comparable to what you [ 3 will probably see on the other license conversions, and I 4 don't even know whether or not our organization or some 5 other facet of the new organization will come back with the ; 6 rest of the license conversions. 7 But what we've described in terms of where this ! t 8 plant stands overall in the resolution of these issues, we l i 9 think, supports the determination that they can receive an ! 10 FTOL. 11 We will proceed with ISAP and come back to the j 12 committee when we've completed that effort. i 13 DR. SilEWMON: That.'s a good bottom line. , i 14 What do you think of the next two or three -- 15 which is the next one to come in for conversion? It will be 16 out of what two or three plants? i 17 MR. CRIMES: It',a going to be Palisades,- i 18 Dresden. 19 DR. SilEWMON: Close enough. 20 MR. GRIME 3: I can't recall what the third one 21 is. 22 DR. SHEWMON: Any other questions before we make ! 23 closing comments?
?
24 (No response.) ; 25 MR. KACICll I would just say, while it's not a l l , i l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l' E3HNws N e w ide % 7 amNwe
, t l 1 3210 09 15 188 l I
- DAVbw I burning problem, we don't have an FTOL. I hope ws get one j 2 soon. i
! 3 DR. SHEWMON: Are there any feelings around the i r t j j 4 table that we can't write a letter acting positively on l
- r l 5 this? l 1
6 (No response.) l 7 Fine. I guess that then finished my part of the ! 1 1 8 program, Mr. Chairman. l j 9 MR. WARD: Thank you, Dr. Shewmon. i i i 1 10 One more thing before we recess for the evening. l l 11 Dr. Savio has something that he'd like to pass ! ] 1
! 12 out. l 1 r
!O t' "a s^vro' Tat t ror o v oxr at' th-l , 14 discussion about safety goals. ; l : i 15 There is a proposed draft letter with more f i < j 16 comments on safety goals, and if you get a chance in the , t 17 morning, we'd appreciate it, if you'd take a look at it [ 18 before the session starts. f 19 MR. WARD: Okay. One more point. ) 20 I'd like to remind the members that the meeting f i i 1 21 starts tomorrow morning at 8:00 a.m., an unusual hour. l
- i
! 22 Don't ask me to explain it. It starts at 8:00 l i l 23 a.m., but on Saturday, it's the normal time of 8:30 a.m. I 24 DR. MOELLER: I'll move 8:00 o' clock on Saturday. l 1 i O 25 oa 'ow's' we'r 91 aataa to tav un enae tat - ! { , t I j ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. 202 347 37(m Naionwisie Cowrese afn)**M4 >
1 t l i 3210 09 16 189 f t DAVbw 1 MR. WARD: For each day. l 2 DR. SHEWMON: He originally suggested 7:30. Now ( l 3 he's relenting to 8:00. That's his strategy. ! l 4 DR. REMICK: Failing to hear a second -- I i 5 DR. MOELLER: We had a second. e 6 MR. WARD: Is there any discussion? , l 7 DR. MARK: Does the Metro start running as early ( 8 as 8:00? 9 MR. REED: You must come by cab on Saturday. [ i 10 MR. WARD: Let's do a cost-benefit on that. . 11 MR. MICHELSON: On an individual basis. ! I I 12 MR. WARD: All in favor of beginning the Saturday j () 13 meeting at 8:00 rather than 8:30, signify by raising your 14 hand. ! 15 (A show of hands.) l 16 MR. WARD: 7. It's a substantive issue. i 17 It does not pass. ' l 18 (Laughter.) 19 So 8:30 Saturday. And 8:00 tomorrow. j 20 (Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the meeting was 21 adjourned, to recovene at 8:00 a.m., Friday, December 6, 22 1985.) 23 ! 24 l [ () 25 , i 1 I i l ; l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, i l 202 347.)?00 Nanonetde Cowrese _- so)446d6 !
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER V This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: NAME OF PROCEEDING: ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 308Tl! GENEllAL MEETING l I l DOCKET NO.: PLACE: WAS!!I NGTON , D. C. (> DATE: TilU RS DAY , DECI:Mul:R 5, 1985 woro hold as horein appears, and that this is the original transcript thoroof for the file of the United States Nucloar Rogulatory Co.raission. (sigt) e (TYPED) DAVID L. Il0FFMAN Official Reporter ACI:-Fl:DI:RAL RI:150HTI:l(S, INC. Reporter's Affiliation
)
v e
NRR STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE O ACRS 1 i l
SUBJECT:
FTOL CONVERSION FOR MILLSTONE UNIT 1 i DATE: DECD'BER 5,1985 I PRESENTER: M. L. BOYLE PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH /DIV: INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROJECT MANAGER ' INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROJECT DIRECTORATE i PRESENTER'S NRC TEL. NO.: 492-8935 1 O
i I - I 1 , i 1 O
~
4 SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM f l, i ( j PHASE I - DETERMINE SET OF REVIEW TOPICS i 1 i
! PHASE !! - EVALUATE SELECTED PLANTS AGAINST REVIEW TOPICS I
i 1' ' ! l MILLSTONE I PHASE !! REPORT (IPSAR, NUPEG-0824) PUBLISHED
! FEBRUARY 1983 O
1 I I i SUPPLEMENT TO IPSAR, NUREG-082tl PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 1985 ! l 8 ** I l i
, t i
I 4 i 1 l lO i I i :
' {
i !
O INTERIM RELIABILITY EVALUATION PROGRAM PHASE I - STUDY OF CRYSTAL RIVER 3 PHASE II - USING METHODOLOGICAL INSIGHTS FROM PHASE I, PERFORM PRA STUDY ON: BROWNS FERRY ] ANO 1 CALVERT CLIFFS 1 MILI. STONE I I MILLSTONE 1 PHASE 11 REPORT (NUREG/CR-3085) COMPLETED JANUARY 1983 l I e 1
l
)
I . ISAP FOR MILLSTONE 1 () l ORIGINAL REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN ISAP WAS BY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 28, 1983 STAFF RESPONDED TO THE REQUEST ON APRIL 5, 1984 NRC ISSUES ISAP POLICY STATEMENT ON NOVEMBER 15, 1984 STAFF AND LICENSEE MET FOR INITIAL TOPIC SCREENING REVIEW ON APRIL 2, 1985 l l LICENSEE SUBMITTED FINAL ISAP SCOPE AND DESCRIPTION l ON MAY 17, 1985 STAFF ISSUES SCOPE APPROVAL ON JULY 31, 1985 O l l 1 L O) L-3
t ISAP PROGRAM AND OBJECTIVES DESCRIPTION OF THE ISAP PROGRAM FOUND IN COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT ON SSER (49 FR 45112, NOVEMBER 15, 1984). OBJECTIVE - TO PROVIDE A STABLE ENVIRONMENT TO EVALUATE ALL LICENSING ISSUES, ESTABLISH IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES, f PROVIDE A BASIS FOR UPDATING THE SCHEDULE AND PROVIDE A BASIS FOR FUTURE REGULATORY ACTIONS. FEATURES DETERMINISTIC REVIEW 0F ISSUES PROBABILISTIC REVIEW OF ISSUES AND PROVIDE A l
SUMMARY
OF PLANT STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. OPERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEW ; LICENSEE PERFORMS INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES O FOUND IN DETERMINISTIC /PSA/0PERATING EXPERIENCE REVIEWS, ; DECISIONS ON CORRECTIVE ACTIONS BASED ON QUALITATIVE l ASSESSfCENT OF VALUE/ IMPACT APPROPRIATENES OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS REVIEWED BY STAFF t LICENSEE WILL PROVIDE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES i LICENSE AMENDMENT CONTAINING IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES . AND PROCEDURES TO UPDATE SCHEDULES ISSUED I O 1
m an A e- -oA -wMm,ww a m- m 1m. A A A M-am me- 'a--- ----- 0 1 o . I
- e
!!ill'I l l ; , lilli! ! s ! E k
O h k " i l v I i vlll
@ u -. =
l~ $ l 8
- . E .
lv! I 'lla is e i
- n. -
y! i .
!=y l0 e.. !!
j '
l Millstone ! ISAP !ssues O PSA ISAP i Title - NRC !ssues to be included in ISAP Topic Source Score 1.01 Gas Turbine 6enerator Start Logic Modifications SEP V!ll-2 1.00 1.02 Tornado Missile Protection SEP !!!-4.A 3.75 1.03 Containment Isolation-Appendia A Modifications SEP VI-4 1.04 RWCU Systes Pressure Interlock SEP V-II.A 0.01 1.05 Ventilation Systes Modifications SEP 11-5 0.00 1.06 Setssic Gaalification of Safety Related Piping IE3 79-02&-14 0.10 1.07 Control Rcon Design Revie. 0737:Supp! l 0.10 1.0S Safety Paraseter Display Systes 0737: Suppl 1 1.09 R6 1.97 Instrumentation 0737:Seppl 1 1.10 Energency Response Facilities Instrueentation 0737: Suppl i 1.!! Post Accident Hydrogen Monitor 0737: Suppl ! 1.12 Control Race Habitability 0737:111.D.3.4 0.50 1.13 bur Vessel Water Level Instrueentation 0737:ll.F.2 1.50 1.14 Appendia J Modifications 10CFR50 1.15 FSAR L'pdate 50.71 1.16 Appendia R 50.48 5.00 1.17 Replaceeent of Motor Operated Valves 50.49 1.50 1.18 ATWS 50.62 1.00 1.19 Integrated Structural Ananysis SEP
!.20 MOV Interlocks SEP !!!-10.A 1.21 Fault Transfers SEP VI-7.C.! .25 1.22 Electrical Isolation SEP VII-l.A 1.23 Grid Separation Procedures SEP V!ll-1.A 1.24 Energency Poser SEP V!!!-2 1.00 1.25 Degraded Grid Voltage Procedures MPA B-23 1.26 Ites 2.1-Equipeent Classification / Vender Inter. Sales ATWS 1.27 Itees 3.1.ll.2-Post Maintenance Testing Sales ATuS
; 1.29C itee 3.1.3-Pest Maintenance Testing TS Changes Sales ATWS 1.29 Response to GL B1-34 MFA 3-65 1.30 Ites 1,2-Post Trip Revice Data and Information Sales ATWS 1.31 Ites 2.2-Equipeent Classification / Vendor Inter. Sales ATWS 1.32 Itees 3.2.in.2-Post Maint. Testing Procedures Sales ATWS 1.3!C ltes 3.2.3-Pest Maintenance Testing TS Changes Sales ATWS 1.34 ltees 4.5.28.3-Reactor Trip Systes Testing Sales ATWS 1.35 Ites 4.5.1-Reactor Systee Functional Testing Sales ATWS 1.36 TS Covered by 6L 83-36 MPA 3-83 1.37C TS Af fected by 50.72 and .73 (6L 83-431 MPA A-18 1.38 Espand GA List uuREG-0933 1.39 Radiation Protection Plans ERE6-0933 1.40 Bolting Degradation or Failure ERE6-0933 1.41 Flooding of Cospartments by Backflos WURE6-0933 1.42 MSL Leaka;e Control Systees ERE6-0933 1.43 Water Haseer ERE6-0933 1.44 Asyssetric Bloedoen loads on Reactor Systees ERE6-0933 1.45 Systees Interaction EREG-0933 1.44 Detereination of SRV Pool Dynamic Loads NUREG-0933 1.47 Containeent Energency Susp Performance ERE6 0933 1.48 Safety Factor for Penetration I 10A Oper. Esp.
!.49 Peactor Vesse! Surveillance Progras 50 App. 6 & H 1
k
t 1 Millstone 1 ISAP issues PSA O U ISAP I Title - NU lssues to be included in ISAP
,. _ , +. - -.
Topic Source
. .., +.....
Sccre 2.01 LPCI Resotely Operated Valve 1-LP-50ALB NU 0.10 2.02 Drpell Husidity Instrumentation NU 2.03 Process Computer Replacesent W 2.04 High Steas Flos Setpoint Increase NU .05 2.05 Hydrogen Water Chesistry Study NU 2.06 Condenser Retube NU !.25 2.07 Scdius Hypochlorite Systee NU 10.00 2.09 Entraction Steas Piping NU l.75 2.09 U;;rading of Piping and Instrueentation Diagrass W 2.10 Drysell Ventilation Systes NU 2.!! Stud Tensior:ers W 2.12 Reactor Vessel Head Stand Relocation NU 2.13 Turbine Water Induction Mcdifications W 2.14 Evaluation and !aplementation of WRE6-0577 W 2.15 Tcrque Seitch Evaluation fer MOVs NU 2.16 Reactor Protection Trip Systes W 2.17 4.16kV, 480V & 125Vdc Plant Distribution Prot. W 2.18 Spent Fuel Pcol Stora;e Racks /Transporation task NU 2.19 DC Systee Review W
. 2.20 RNCU Systes ! solation Setpoint Reduction NU 2.21 480V Load Center Rept. of Dil Filled Breaker MU 2.22 Control Red trive Systee Mater Haseer Analysis NU 2.23 Instrueent, Service and Breathing Air leprve NU p 2.24 GHsite Power Systees NU V 2.25 Drysell Teaperature Monitoring Systes upgrade NU 2.26 Reliability Equipeent W 2.27 Spare Recirculation Puep Motor NU 2.28 Long Ters Cooling Study W 10.00 2.29 FUCI Assesseent Study NU 2.30 MS!V Closure Test Frequency NU !.50 2.31 LPCI Luke Oil Cooler Test Frequency W 10.00 a m 1
Millstone ! ISAP laplementation Itees O V ISAP O Ites w..., o... . . .- . - . + 1 Seiseic h alification of Safety Related Piping 28 Primary Containment Leak Rate Monitoring 3 Undervoltage Protection Energency Bus 4 Replacreent of Motor Operated Valves ! 5 Floodgate Mods. and Installation of Scuppers 6 Refueling Cavity Seal Evaluation 7 Records Vault Teeperature and Husidity Control 8 Process Computer UPS Installation 9 MS Relief Valve Vacune Breaker Lead Qualification 10 Station Battery 'A' Replacesent 11 Rev. and Eval. for Diesel Air Start Systes 12 Sas Turbine Senerator Elec. Equipeent Protection 13 Auxiliary Equipeent Systes Ocillograph 14 Supervisory and Events Recorder Systees 15 Replace Main Senerator Neutral Grounding Trans. 16 Lieltorque Motor Operated Valves:Luhrication 17 460V Motor Soft Start Capability 18 16 SCC Countermeasures 19 Circulating Water Piping Thrust Block Repairs 20 Sas Turbine Generator Battery Replacement 21 Solid Radmaste Building Ventilation and Roci Mods. 22 Spent Fuel Pool Cleanup a 23 Voltage Regulator, Instrument Trans Replacements 24 House Heating Boiler Stad 25 Procuring h el. Grade Mat./ Service Sensitive Lines 264 Plant Training Sieulator 278 Protabilistic Safety Study
! 290 Unit Availability Model 290 Roof Replacement 30 Eser. 6as Turbine Generator Vibration Switches I
I Ongoing activities that represent a level of effort O 4
._._._-..__--_.._._-~.___.__.-___i._.,__.-__-.____
4 l 1 O INTEGRATED SCHEDULES I PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED IN IA WILL BE THE BASIS OF AN INTEGRATED SCHEDULE 1 l INTEGRATED SCHEDULE AND PROCEDURE TO UPDATE SCHEDULE TO BE MADE PART OF LICENSE ; GENERIC POLICY TO DEVELOP INTEGRATED LIVING SCHEDULES TO BE THE SAME AS IN ISAP O 1 4 t 4 l k f i} , I s 1/ 4 9
'l 4 g .-
, O
.# , e
~
j ~
-. i '
?g ,
< t
( 4
O , SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM ft PHASE I - DETERMINE SET OF REVIEW TOPICS i
; PHASE II - EVALUATE SELECTED PLANTS AGAINST REVIEW TOPICS l
4 MILLSTONE 1 PHASE II REPORT (IPSAR, NUREG-0824) PUBLISHED FEBRUARY.1983 i O SUPPLEMENT TO IPSAR, NUREG-0824 PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 1985 i
+
4 l } f i t I i O
- i.
. . . . _ . - - _ . . . _ - . , - . _ . . . - . . . . . , - - . . - . . - , . . _ _ , , . - . _ . - . - ~ , , _ . - , . . , _ , , , - . _ .
IPSAR
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS
- O.
SEP TOPICS REVIEWED 86/137 ^ TOPICS THAT MET CRITERIA 48 ! TOPICS CONSIDERED IN IA 38 (89 ITEMS) 4 HARDWARE TS OR FURTHER NONE/ MODIFICATIONS PROCEDURE EVALUATION COMPLETE ITEMS REVIEWED 14 10 41 24 IN IPSAR O .,. IPSAR 17 1 23 24 ) SUPPLEMENT i 4 4 O 4
. . , - , - - . . . - ~ , . - - - . , - , - - . , . .
...----.,-.-----.,,,.-,.--,-,,--_...-,-,-.,..,,.--,.---....-n-,-, -
O IPSAR SUPPLEMENT HARDWARE MODIFICATIONS t t , SEP TOPIC NO. PROPOSED MODIFICATION ISSUES .i II-3.3.1/III-3.C INSTALL ROOF SCUPPERS 2 III-I PERFORM INSPECTION 1 III-2/III-4.A PROVIDE PROTECTED 7 SHUTDOWN PATH V-II.A INSTALL INDEPENDENT INTERLOCK 1 VI-4 CONTAINMENT PENETRATION 2 MODIFICATIONS O viii-1.A CONDUCT ISOLATION TEST 2 VIII-2 ^ BYPASS TURBINE TRIPS IN 3 EMERGENCY 17 f 1 1 I O 1 ik
.i i
O i i i l .t
- IPSAR SUPPLEMENT t
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION OR PROCEDURE CHANGE i i i i j i j , SEP TOPIC N0. PROPOSED MODIFICATION ISSUES i 1
, VIII-3.B REVISE TS ON BATTERY OUTAGE LIMITS
! [ lO l I. t i , O P l 4 , t ! i l J l j-i. j O a lh l l_ . . _ - . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ , . . , _ _ . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ ._ _ _ _ __ _ _
O IPSAR SUPPLEMENT FURTHER EVALUATION SEP TOPIC NO. EVAlllATION ISSUES II-3.B.1/III-3.A ASSURE ADEQUACY OF MASONRY 3 WALL IN FIRE PUMPHOUSE/ EVALUATE HYDR 0 STATIC FORCES II-4.F EVALUATE STRUCTURAL CAPABILITY 3 0F PILES /S0Il INVESTIGATION UNDER PIPES III-1 () III-2/III-7.B CLASSIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT WIND LOADS 4 3 III-4.B IMPROVEMENT IN TURBINE CV 1 AVAILABILITY i III-6 SEISMIC ANALYSES 4 VI-7.C.1 CIRCUIT BREAKER COORDINATION 2 VIII-3.B BATTERY STATUS ALARMS 1 IX-5 - VENTILATION 3 24 i t4
i () POL CONVERSION SEP . t SCOPE - PLANT DESIGN CHANGES NEW REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
- STATUS OF GENERIC ISSUES ,
- TMI ACTION PLAN ITEMS
- USIs
() CONTENT - THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE CONVERSION SER WAS ' ADOPTED FROM SEP RESULTS FORMAT - FOLLOWS THE GENERAL FORMAT OF SERs ISSUED FOR OLs. APPENDIX B - TMI ACTION PLAN ITEMS APPENDIX C - STATUS OF USIs AND ALAB-444 SUPPLEMENT TO THIS SER WILL APPEND COPY OF ACRS LETTER AND WILL ADDRESS STEPS TAKEN BY THE STAFF TO RESOLVE ANY ISSUES RAISED BY THE ACRS, 4 O
\
is v
'f
OVERVIEW 0F PLANT OPERATING PERFORMANCE CONTENT
- 1. APPENDIX F 0F MILLSTONE 1 IPSAR (NUREG-0824) PROVIDES A DATA COLLECTION (AVAILABILITY AND CAPACITY FACTORS, FORCED SHUTDOWNS, ;
FORCED POWER REDUCTIONS, REPORTABLE EVENTS, ENVIRONFENTAL EVENTS AND RADIOLOGICAL RELEASE EVENTS) THROUGH 1981.
- 2. THE OVERVIEW HAS BEEN UPDATED THROUGH 1984 IN ISAP (0RNL/NOAC-228, OCTOBER 1985)
CONCLUSIONS
- 1. NO CONTINUING MAJOR CHALLENGES TO PLANT SAFETY,
- 2. AB0VE AVERAGE AVAILABILITY AND CAPACITY FACTORS,
- 3. RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT REPORTABLE EVENTS, O- 4. MAJORITY OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WERE RAND 0M EVENTS, LICENSEE HAS REVIEWED THE DRAFT ORNL REPORT AND PROVIDED COMMENTS TO THE STAFF. (LETTER: OCTOBER 3, 1985).
I 1 a 4 O l 3 Ite
. _ . - . . . _ . . __ . . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ ,....__.m. . . _ . . . _ . . . . _ _ . , .,. . ... - _ - . , . _ _ . , _. . . _ . . . .
- . . .. . = - - . - - . . .- .-_- -.. . _ . _ _ - _ - _ . - . . _ - . -
1 . TRENDS IN OPERATING EXPERIENCE e i i 1. FAILURE OF STACK GAS MONITOR
- 2. HIGH C00LDOWN RATES ,
; i j 3. RADI0 ACTIVITY LEVELS IN MARINE LIFE ,
i i f 4. LOSS OF EMERGENCY POWER SUPPLY CAPABILITY f i 5. PIPE CRACKS I
- 6. ISOLATION CONDENSER VALVE FAILURES 1
. 7. MSIV FAILURES
; 8. SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE SETPOINT DRIFT .
I e l i 1 l lO 4 i b i
. , I __- .. . , . _ . . - . - _ _ . . - .,_,_-,_._,....._.,..._.,_-..-_,._..,_..,..-,,m,..,,. , , , , . . . , , _ _ . ,
O SALP RATING APPRAISAL PERIODS FUNCTIONAL AREAS: 9/ 1/83 9/ 1/82 9/ 1/81 7/ 1/80 7/ 1/79 2/28/85 8/31/83 8/31/82 6/30/81 6/30/80 PLANT OPERATIONS 1 2 1 1 AVERAGE RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS 2 1 1 2 AVERAGE MAINTENANCE 1 1 1 1 AVERAGE SURVEILLANCE TESTING 1 2 1 1 AVERAGE FIRE PROTECTION & HOUSEKEEPING 1 1 1 1 AVERAGE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 1 2 1 1 AVERAGE h CURITY & SAFEGUARDS 1 1 2 2 AVERAGE REFUELING & OUTAGE MANAGEMENT 2 1 1 1 AVERAGE LICENSING ACTIVITIES 1 1 1 NOT INCLUDED O d
e
^
Tabla 2.1 Summary cf IPSAR upplement Evaluations O V SEP IPSAR Topi2 Section in No. Requfresente Supplement Requirements No. litle . Free IPSAR Section From Mo. Supplement 11-3.8 4.1.1 11-3.8.1, Flooding Elevation . Determine the effects of 2.1.1 II-3.C probable samfeue hurricane Assure structural adequacy of (Ptm) wave inleakage and easonry walls in fire pumphouse. Identify any necessary (ISAP Issue 1.19) corrective actions. Provide analysts of PMH Mone wave structural effects. (See Sectfons 4.6 and 4.12.) 4.1.2 Intake Structure None --- 4.1.3 Local Flooding None --- 4.1.4 Cas Turbine Building None --- 4.1.5 Diesel Fuel 011 None (See Section 4.1.6.) -~ 4.1. 6 Emergency Procedures Revise the flood emergency 4.0 procedures to address the Procedural change complete. topic concerns and feplement the revised procedures. 4.1.7 Roofs 3 Determine the adequacy of 2.1.2 roofs subjected to ponding Install scuppers on selected resulting from the local roofs. (1985 Refueling Outage) probable maxleue precipitation Il-4.F (PMP). (See Section 4.12.) 4.2.1 Turbine Butiding Evaluate structural capability 2.2.1 of the plies supporting the Under staff review. (ISAP issue building. (See Section 4.12.) 1.19) 4.2.2 Cas Turbine Generator Building Evaluate structural capability 2.2.2 of the plies supporting the Under staff review. (ISAP issue building. (See Section 4.12.) 1.19) 5
, .I
- m Tab 1') 2.1 Summary cf IP5AR 1eeent Errivations SEP
- IPSAR Topic Section , Supplement Requirements Requirements section From No. No. Title From IFSAR No.
Supplement 4.2.3 Buried Pipelines Conduct soll Investigation in 2.2.3 Awalting Information from area of the safety-related teater pipelines where they may licensee. 115AP issue 1.19) be underlain by peat. (See Section 4.12.) III-1 4.3.1 Radiography Requirement's Perform a volumetric inspection 2.3 Same (15AP issue 1.15) of all Class 1 and 2 piping, and valves and Class 2 vessels not volumetrically inspected previously. Document in FSAR update. 4.3.2 Fracture Toughness Identify and replace, if
- 2.3 Same (ISAP Issm 1.s5) necessary, the components that do not meet fracture toughness requirements.
Document in FSAR update. 4.3.3 Valves Evaluate design of Class 1, 2. 3 Same (15AP Issue 1.15) 2, and 3 valves on a sampling basts; upgrade if necessary. 4 Document in FSAR update. Y 4.3.4 Pumps Analyre the design safety 2.3 margins of the specified Same (ISAP Issue 1.15) pumps. Document in FSAR update. 4.3.5 Storage Tanks Evaluate design of specified 2.3 Same (ISAP issue 1.15) tanks. Document in FSAR todate. 9 9 I
/
- tabb 2.1 samary cf IP nd Supp1'eent e t =1uations c,
~ 9.
SEP IP5AR Topic Section , Supplement Requirements Requirements 10 0 . No. Yttle , Free IPSAR Section From No. Supplement III-2 4.4.1 Ileactor Su11 ding 5 teel . Analyre the specified 2.4 Structures Above the structures capabilities to Provide protected safe shutdown 0$erating Floor train and assure adequacy of CST resist tornado loads and propose corrective actions, and firewater tank anchor bolts. If necessary. (See Section (ISAP Issue 1.02) 4.12.) 4.4.2 Ventilation Stack Submit analyses demonstrating 2.4 capability to achieve and Same as 4.4.1 esintain safe shutdown of Units 1 and 2 case of a tornado-induced failure of the stack. (Analysis subeltted-- under staff review.) 4.4.3 Effects of Failure of Nonqualified Structures Provide an analysis of the 2.4 effects and any corrective Same as 4.4.1 actions that may be necessary. 4.4.4 Components Not Enclosed Determine the adequacy of the 2.4 in Qua11 fled Structures components and identify any Same as 4.4.1 corrective actions that may 5' be necessary. 4.4.5 Roofs Determine the adequacy of roofs 2.4 of Category I structures. (See Same as 4.4.1 Section 4.12.) 4.4.6 Load Costinations Demonstrate that wind loads 2.4 were properly combined with See Section 2.10. other specif fed loads or identify (ISAP Issue 1.19) any necessary corrective action. (See section 4.12.) 9 m _ _ --
Tabla 2.1 Sumary cf IP5AR Supptseent Ev:1uations SEP IP5AR icpfc Section , Supplement Requirements No. Requirements Sectton No. Title From
. Free IP5AR No.
1 Supplement 111-3.A 4.5.1 Flood Elevation . Provide analysfs ef PMM wave 2.5 1 ' structural effects and identify See section 2.1.1 any necessary corrective actions. (See Sections 4.1.1 and 4.12.) 4.5.2 Groundwater Demonstrate approprfate 2. 5 Provfde addltional justification consideration of hydrostatic forces on a sampling basis. of margin. (15AP issue 1.19) ! (See Section 4.12.) til-3.C 4.6.1 Deficiencies Noted i Determine the adequacy of roofs 2.1.2 subjected to ponding resulting Install scuppers on selected roofs. from the local PMP. (See Section (To be Installed during Fall 1985 refueling outage) 4.12 and 4.1.7.) 1 i 4.6.2 Structures and Camponents Revise procedure to include Requiring Inspection 4.0 Procedural change coglete. inspection of floodwalls. (See section 4.6.3.)
- 4. 6. 3 Inspection Progree Develop and sukelt an feproved 4.0 Inspection progree for water Inspection progree complete.
control structures. '
$!!!-4.A 4.7 Tornado Missfies Evaluate protection of systaes 2.4 4
- and components to ensure the Provide safe shutdown train.
i capability to safely shutdown the plant via a tornado-elssile-protected path. Modify as necessary to provide 2.4 a tornado-ofssile protected Provide safe shutdown train. shutdown path, See Section 2.4 (ISAP Issue 1.02) i 111-4.B 4.8 Turbine Missiles inspect turbine and propose 2.6 None frequency based on results. 1 1 1 e i l
_ tabla 2.1 Sumery cf IP5All Suppl t Evsluettons SEP IP5AR Topic , Supplement Requirements Section Requirements No. Iso. Section From Title Free IPSAR
. No. Supplement III-4.8 4.8 Turbine Mfsqlles Evaluate the leprovement in
. 2. 6 Awaiting further Information control valve availability free turbine manufacturer, associ:ted with full closure testing and feasibility of conducting such tests.
III-5.A 4.9.1 Cascading Pipe Breaks- 5delt an analysts of cascading 2. 7.1 flone pipe breaks. 4.9.2 Jet Iaptagement Provide information specified. 2.7.2 leone 4.9.3 Pipe nfhlp Provide an analysts of the 2.7.3 ' Isone potential for and consequences of pipes whlpping into the dryvell Ifner. 111-5.5 4.10.1 Itederate-Energy Pfplag feone --- 4.10.2 Jet Impingement Subelt a review of affected jet 2. 8 feone lapingement analysis. 4.10.3 Unisolable Breaks leone --- i III-6 4.11.1 Pfle Foundettens Evaluate structural capability 2.9.1
$ et Pfles s p rting the turbine None (See Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2)
(ISAP Issue 1.19) and gas turbine buf1 dings. (See sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, and 4.12.) 4.11.2 fester-Operated Valves Demonstrate valve structural 2.9.2 U
- r staff review.
Integrity. (ISAP Issue 1.06) 4.11.3 Low-Pressure Caelant feene --- Injection / Containment j 5 pray Heat Enchangers I e 4 e i i i
t tabb 2.1 Sumary cf IPSAR Suppl t Ev:;1uations SEP IP544 Supplement Topic Section
- Requirements Requirements section From Iso. Iso. Title Free IPSAR No. Supplement III-6 4.11.4 Transformer and Control Ilman (staff to revleutng). 2.9.3 Room Panels Under staff review.
(ISAP Issue 1.06) 4.11.5 Abl19ty of Safety-Related leone --- Electrical Equipment to Function. . 4.11.6 Quellfication of Cable Provide plan to implement 2.9.4 etone Trays results of SEP Ouners Group Program. 4.11.7 Rectrculation Pump Sgperts leone --- 4.11.8 Reactor vessel Internals Provide a selselc analysts of 2.9.5 under staff review. the reactor vessel Internals. (ISAP !ssue 1.06) III-7.8 4.12 Design Codes. Design Evaluate adequacy of original 2.10 Under staff review. Criteria, toad Combinations design criteria on a sampling (15AP Issue 1.19) and Reactor Cavity Design basis for specified structural Criteria elements; provide Information requested in Topics 11-3.B. ' II-4.F. III-2, III-3.A. and I III-5 that has been deferred to this topic. III-8.A 4.13 Loose-Parts Monitoring and leone --- Core Barrel Vibration Monitoring III-10.f. 4.14 Thermal-Overload Protectfen Demonstrate proper setting 2.11 None for lectors of Isotor-Operated of thermal-overload trip Valves setpoints and discuss operating espertence of specified valves. I Implement medtfIcatlens found
- to be necessary.
3:
'l l
i .
+
t i
- Tabla 2.1 Susanary cf IP5AR Supp1batEv;1oations
[ ' 9
~
SEP IP5AR p Topic section , Supplement Requirements Requirements Section No. No. Title From
. Free IPSAR No. Supplement IV-2 4.15 Reactivity Control Systees . None ---
Including Functional Design ahd Protection Against Single Failures V-5 4.16.1 Systems Currently Available Provide at least one leakage 3.1 Technical Specification change at Millstone Unit 1 detection method that is quellfled to a safe shutdown complete (Amendment 97). earthquake or provide procedures that specify actions to be taken for a seisale event and failure of the leakage detection equip-ment (e.g., plant shutdown). The leakage detection method should be testable during operation. Evaluate sensitivity in conjunc- 3.1 Mone tion with Topic III-5.A. (See Section 4.9.1.) 4.16.2 Intersystee Leakage None --- V-10.8 4.17 Residual Heat Removal 9 Review and feptement emergency 4.0 Procedural change complete.
- Systee Relfability procedures, including steps to proceed to a cold shutdown condition free outside the control roce.
V-11.A 4.18 Requirements for Isolation Install en independent pressure 4.0 Regfon I outstanding Ites No. of High- and Low-Pressure interlock for the reactor water Systems cleame (RWCU) systee inboard 245/84-27-05. (ISAP Issue 1.04) suction isolation valve. 8 I
tab 13 2.1 5esmeary cf IP Supp1'eeent Evaluatfons SEP IPSAR I i Topic Section Supplement Requirements Requirements leo. Ito. Section Title . From IPSAR From 96 o . 5+plement V-12.A 4.19.1 Water Cheelstry Lfelts . Revise Technical Specifications 3.2 l to incorperate AG 1.56 Ilefts Technical Spectffcation change for chlorides and conductivity complete (Amendment 99). Italts, or provide justification for not doing so. 4.19.2 Lietting Conditions for leone Operat1on --- VI-4 4.20.1 Locked-Closed Valves Install administratively 4.1 i controlled mechanical locking Complete including revisions devices in the specified valves. to IP5AR requirements noted in Section 4.0. 4.20.2 Lines pequiring a Second Valve and Both Locked Install a second valve and 4.2 administratively controlled Complete except for Regfon ! Closed outstanding Itee Iso. 245/84-27-08. i locking devices on both, on the spectfled lines. 4.20.3 Remote Manual Valves Demonstrate leakage detection, 2.12.1 leone locate operating stations in accessible areas, and develop procedures for isolation of the spectfIed valves. 1 Y 4.20.4 Valve Location leone --- l 4.20.5 Instruent Lines leone --- i 4.20.6 Valve Location and Type None --- 4.20.7 Lack of infornatIon Rev1ew Isolatfon capabIIIty of 2.12.2 two lines and leptement Relocate branch 1Ine connection modifications, if necesary. points. (15AP !ssue 1.03) i t I 1
, e
.- A Tabla 2.1 Summary cf IP Supplement Ev;1uations p)
( SEP IPSAR Topic Section , Supplement Requfrements Requirements No. No. Sect,1on Title
. Free IPSAR from Mo. Supplement VI-7.A.3 4.21.1 Testing of space Coolers , Demonstrate that the space 2.13 Mone coolers are not essential.
(Analysts subeltted- under staff revfew.) 4.21.2 Testing of the E5W5 None --- VI-7.A.4 4.22 Core Spray Nozzle None --- Effectiveness VI-7.C.1 4.23.1 Automatic Bus Transfers Evaluate the entsting automatic 2.14.1 Perform circuit breaker bus transfers and fientify corrective actions to ensure coordination analysis faulted loads would not be including need for transferred. instrument ac bus (ISAP 4.23.2 Issues 1.21 and 2.17) Manual Bus Transfers Install appropriate Interlocks 2.14.2 Same as above. or provide justification for not dofng so. (ISAP Issue 2.19) VI-10.A 4.24.1 Su veillance Frequency Evaluate the surveillance 4.0 Mone frequency of the specified channels. 4.24.2 Channel Functional Test tj feone --- Frequency 4.24.3 Response-Time Testing None --- VIII-1.A 4.25.1 Isolation Devices Between Conduct test to determine if Reactor Protectfen Systee 2.15 entsting isolation is adequate. (ISAP Issue 1.22) (RPS) and Monitoring Propose corrective actions if Systems necessary. 4.25.2 1 solation Devices Between Provide adequate Isolation. 4.0 the RP5 and its Power Supply hune e d
i Table 2.1 Summany of IPSAR and Supplement Evaluations SEP IPSAR Toptc Supplement Requirements set. tion Requirements No. No. Section F rom Title From IP5AR
. No. Supplement VII-3 4.26 Systems Required for Safe None ---
1 Shutdown VIII-1.A 4.27 Potential Equipment Failures Develop and implement procedures 4.0 Mone a Associated with Degraded to protect Class IE systees of a Grid Voltage degraded grid voltage condition. VIII-2 4.28.1 5tartup Trips typass Ifght-off speed and 4.3 Region I outstanding Ites No. generator excitation speed trips under accident conditions. 245/84-27-07. (ISAP Issue 1.01) rg 4.28.2 Operational Trips Bypass high lobe off temperature 4.3 trip under accident conditions. Region I outstanding Ites No. 245/84-27-07. (ISAP Issue 1.01) 4.28.3 Gas Turbine Preventive Implement a preventive mainten- 2.16 None Maintenance Program ance program, improve existing j 4 ene, or provide justification for not doing so. I 4.28.4 Generator Trips Bypass speciffed trips under 4.3 4 Region I outstanding Ites No. accident conditions. 245/84-27-08. (ISAP Issue 1.01) 4.28.5 Annunciators None --- t VIII-3.A 4.29 Station Battery Test Revise Technical SpecIfleations 3. 3 Requirements Technical SpectfIcetIon change to require battery service and complete (Amen h nt 99). discnarge tests. VIII-3.8 4.30.1 Battery Status Alares and Install the specified battery 2.17 Under staff review. Indications status alarus or provide justification for not doing so. , t 4 I
Tab 1] 2.1 5esmery of IP54A Sepp 1 t Evaluettens
~
SE2 IP5AR Tepic Section , Stoplement Requirements Requirements leo. me. Title Section Free
. Free IP5AR No.
- Supplement VIII-3.5 4.30.2 Settery Outage tielts . Revise Technical Specificattens 3.4 to reduce bettery eutage Ifelts Preposed Technical Specificattens or prowIde justificatten for not received free licensee.
present lletts. IR-3 4.31 Stetten Service and Coeling Water Systees leone (pending results of Tepic --- II-4.F review). IX-5 4.32.1 Core Spray and LPCI Systems Demonstrate that the space coolers 2.18.1 Ventilatten See Sectlen 2.15. are not essential. (See Secties
- 4. 21.1. ) (Analysts sukeltted--
l under staff review.) 4.32.2 Reinttletten of Ventilatten Deesestrate that the egufpeent 2.10.2 Af ter a toss-of-Offsite- serviced is unaffected by the hedify operating procedures Power Event lack of ventflatten and that the to start exhaust fans. i
- 41, . combustion llett in the i bettery rooms will not be 1 reached.
4.32.3 Lacit of Informetten
- Provide informatten en the space 2.18.3 I
coolers for the fee h ter (ISAP Issue 1.05)
$ coolant injection and diesel generater areas.
1 I 4.32.4 Intake Structure Ventilatten . l System Seemastrate that cefficleet 2.18.4 ventilation can be provided in (ISAP Issue 1.05) a timely eenner. IV-1 4.33 Decrease in Feedseter leone currently; survettlance of s i Temperetwee Increese in tertine bypass valves and lletts i Flow. Increase in Steam for reacter power if the termine Flow and Inadvertent bypess is Insperable will be Opening of a 5 team Generater required if credit is taken for j telief er Safety Valve the tertine bypass in the releed 1 4 analysts. i j . ) I i I 4 i i 1 i
tabla 2.1 Seameery of IP 5egipt t Evaluettens SEP IP5AR Topic Sectien 5egsplement Requirements Regnfroments Sectien froe Ste. Ite. Title From IPSAR leo. Se ,plement W-3 4.34 Less of Enternal toed . Isone --- Tvettne Trip, toss of Cendenser vacum Closure of Stein Steam Isoletten Valve (Sist), and Steam Pressere Segulater Failure (Closed) - W-16 4.35 Radtelegical ceaseguences !aplement stat Standard 3.5 Technical Specificatten change of Fellere of Smell Lines Technical Specificatten Italt complete (Amendeent 99). Carrying Primary Coolant for prieary coolant activity outside Centalsment and propose, for staff review, assectated actlen statements if these lletts are exceeded. W-18 4.36 madtelegical Conseguences See Sectfen 4.35. 3.6 See Section 3.5 of a Itsen Stees time Failure Outside Contalmeent. T i a l 1 b e l l l
}
1 I I I I
TOPIC: 1.01 Gas Turbine Generator Start Logic Mods. SOURCE: SEP Topic VIII-2 ;
- DISCUSSION
- Result of SEP review indicated that 9 trips associated with start-up and steady-state i operation of the GTG do not use coincident '
i logic or are not bypassed in emergency conditions. ISAP: Evaluate the safety impact and need to implement mods. ! TOPIC: 1.02 Tornado Missile Protection )! SOURCE: SEP Topic III-4. A . DISCUSSION: A protected source of makeup water to the IE and RPV should i be provided to ensure tornado missiles to not inhibit 1 safe shutdown. . j ISAP: Integrate with Topic 1.16 Appendix R ! t l TOPIC: 1.03 Containment Isolation i SOURCE: SEP Topic VI-4 ' DISCUSSION: Make sure identified valves comply with provisions of GDC 54-57. ISAP: Evaluate potential modifications to penetration X-204, ,j cooling water return line l TOPIC: 1.04 RWCU System Pressure Interlock i i SOURCE: SEP Topic V-II.A i O DISCUSSION: Failure of the pressure control valve and a single failure of one pressure interlock could result in a LOCA outside I ! containment. ISAP: Evaluate capacity of relief valve and need for independent interlock. TOPIC: 1.05 Ventilation Systems Mods ! . SOURCE: SEP Topic IX-5 DISCUSSION: SEP recomended mods to emergency power for FWCI coolers and for intake structure exhaust fans. ISAP: Evaluate conservations in design limits and risk insights. . TOPIC: 1.06 Seismic Qualification of Piping
- SOURCE
- IEB 79-02 and 79-14 i DISCUSSION: Licensee required to verify that seismic analyses performed on safety-related piping systems apply to actual configurations ISAP: Since priority mods are complete, evaluate schedule for remaining mods (270/1100) ,
l TOPIC: 1.07 Control Room Design Review SOURCE: NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 DISCUSSION: In response to requirements, program plan and schedule will be submitted by March 2,1987, i ISAP: Schedule should be based on ISAP IA i i y
i TOPIC: 1.08 Safety Parameter Display System q
~ SOURCE: NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 DISCUSSION: ~ In response to requirements, program plan and schedule 4
will be submitted by April 9, 1987 ISAP: Schedule should be based on ISAP IA 1 TOPIC: 1.09 Reg. Guide 1.97 Instrumentation SOURCE: NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 i DISCUSSION: Information related to Reg. Guide 1.97 has been provided I to NRC for review. ISAP: Provide results of review; additional information still necessary; ISAP to schedule ongoing evaluation. TOPIC: 1.10 Emergency Response Facilities Instrumentation SOURCE: NUREG-0737, Supplement I DISCUSSION: Preliminary response by licensee documented in Topic 1.09 Determine schedule for remainder of Topic 1.10 ISAP: response and implementation. : I TOPIC: 1.11 Post accident Hydrogen monitor SOURCE: NUREG-0737, Supplement 1 DISCUSSION: ISAP:
- O TOPIC: 1.12 Control Room Habitability SOURCE: NUREG-0737, III.D.3.4 DISCUSSION: Certain accidents crate potential for hazardous control room environment. Assessmend have shown that i original requirements may be overly conservative i ISAP: Evaluate alternative method of providing control room protection.
1 TOPIC: 1.13 BWR Vessel Level Instrumentation j SOURCE: NUREG-0737, II.F.2 , DISCUSSION: NNECO is currently investigating several approaches to resolve reference leg flashing j ISAP: The need for additional instrumentation should be evaluated. TOPIC: 1.14 Appendix J Mods SOURCE: 10 CFR 50 l DISCUSSION: Licensee requested to identify any design features that do not permit conformance with requirements. i
- ISAP: Provide additional information on schedule determined in ISAP IA.
O i M-1 1
i TOPIC: 1.15 FSAR Update i SOURCE: 10 CFR 50.71 hs DISCUSSION: Licensee required to submit FSAR update according to recent schedule exemption ISAP: Integrate this required date with other schedules. TOPIC: 1.16 Appendix R I SOURCE: 10 CFR 50.48 DISCUSSION: Topic is the result of exemption requests and proposed modifications. ISAP: Schedule should be based on ISAP IA. TOPIC: 1.17 Replacement of Motor Operated Valves SOURCE: 10 CFR 50.49 DISCUSSION: New implementation schedule established by Commiss sn outside ISAP ISAP: Integrate this required date with other schedules. TOPIC: 1.18 ATWS SOURCE: 10 CFR 50.62 DISCUSSION: Licensee is currently in compliance except for SLCS ISAP: The significance of SLCS capacity should be evaluated. 1 Q TOPIC: SOURCE: 1.19 Integrated Structural Analysis SEP II-3.B. II-4.F III-?, III-3.A. III-6, III-7.8 DISCUSSION: Information on structural analyses have been provided ISAP: Evaluate submittals f ) TOPIC: 1.20 M0V Interlocks SOURCE: SEP III-10.A ) DISCUSSION: Licensee has submitted and staff reviewed information on thennal overload devices for 12 MOVs ISAP: Staff SER closed out this topic. Resolved. TOPIC: 1.21 Fault Transfers SOURCE: SEP Topic VI-7.C.1 DISCUSSION: For six remaining ABTs, NNECO studies have shown no i risk impact in not replacing. Issue of reliability and acceptability should be further evaluated. ISAP: Extend and schedule evaluation. 1 TOPIC: 1.22 Electrical Isolation SOURCE: SEP VII-1.A DISCUSSION: SEP review concluded that independence of RPS channels i was not except for neutron flux, ARPM, PPS power supplies, MSL radiation monitors.
- O ISae: eveiuate iiceasee resPoase.
M i
. TOPIC: 1.23 Grid Separation Procedures SOURCE: SEP Topic VIII-1.A
_.- DISCUSSION: See ISAP Topic 1.25 TOPIC: 1.24 Emergency Power SOURCE: GL 84-15 and SEP VIII-2 DISCUSSION: See ISAP Topic 1.01, GTG preventive maintenance program ISAP: Complete TOPIC: 1.25 Degraded Grid Voltage Procedures SOURCE: MPS B-23 DISCUSSION: Licensee must provide operator procedures for degraded grid voltage conditions. ISAP: Complete 4.16 RV bus, LNP, bus load-shed Mods this outage, then schedule final procedures and implementation. TOPICS: 1.2C,1.27,1.2S,1.20,1.31,1.32,1.33,1.34 and 1.35 ATW3 SOURCE: GL 83-28, Salem ATWS DISCUSSION: Review plant deilign as well as utility programs against GL 83-28. . ISAP: Complete evaluation of MPAs i TOPIC: 1.29 Response to GL 81-34 O SOURCE: Gt 81-34 8Wa Screm System eiP e Breeks. mea 8-65 DISCUSSION: Evaluate Millstone 1 against guidelines in NUREG-0803 ISAP: Complete review. TOPIC: 1.30 TS covered by GL 83-36 SOURCE: NUREG-0737 DISCUSSION: TS for each item of the action plan were to be provided. ISAP: Schedule and develop remaining TS. TOPIC: 1.37 TS affected by 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 SOURCE: 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73; GL 83-43 DISCUSSION: GL 83-43 required changes to TS required as a result in change in reporting requirements. ISAP: Staff to issue proposed TS. TOPIC: 1.38 Expand 0A List SOURCE: NUREG-0933 (NUREG-0660) DISCUSSION: When generic guidance is developed, QA lists are to be revised according to revised safety importance lists. ISAP: See how much of the proposed resolution of this topic can be incorporated and IA. O h
TOPIC: 1.39 Radiation Protection Plans SOURCE: NUREG-0933 (TMI III.D.3.1) (hs DISCUSSION: Improve worker protection plans by better defining criteria and responsibility ISAP: See how much of the proposed resolution of this topic can be incorporated into IA. TOPIC: 1.40 Bolting Degradation or railure SOURCE: NUREG-0933 (GI-29) DISCUSSION: Evaluate bolting failure history to see if safe operation may be jeopardized if similar bolts fail. ISAP: See how much of the proposed resolution of this topic can be incorporated into IA. TOPIC: 1.41 Flooding of Compartments by Backflow SOURCE: NUREG-0933; IE 78-06, 83-44 DISCUSSION: Evaluate the consequences of drain backflow into safety-related compartments ISAP: See how much of the proposed resolution of this topic can be incorporated into IA. TOPIC: 1.42 MSL Leakage Control Systems SOURCE: NUREG-0933 DISCUSSION: Evaluate containment penetrations to see if sufficient h3 leakage detection systems. Excessive MSIV leakage has occurred generically. ISAP: See how much of the proposed resolution of this topic can be incorporated into IA. TOPIC: 1.43 Water Hanner SOURCE: NUREG-0933, USI A-1 DISCUSSION: Evaluate plant against effects of water hammer. Develop corrective actions. ISAP: See how much of the proposed resolution of-this topic i can be incorporated into IA. TOPIC: 1.44 Asynnetric Blowdown Loads SOURCE: NUREG-0933, USI A-2 DISCUSSION: Confirm applicability of generic positions to Millstone 1. ISAP: Evaluate licensees response. TOPIC: 1.45 Systems Interaction SOURCE: NUREG-0933, USI A-17 DISCUSSION: Development of systematic process to review plant systems to determine impact on other plant systems. ISAP: See how much of the proposed resolution this topic can be incorporated into IA. _ _ _ _ . -- - - - ~ ~ - - --
TOPIC: 1.46 Determination of SRV pool dynamic loads SOURCE: NUREG-0933; Mark I reassessment; USI A-39 Os DISCUSSION: Determine additional loads that result from SRV operation. ISAP: See how much of the proposed resolution of this topic can be incorporated into IA. TOPIC: 1.47 Containment Emergency Sump Performance SOURCE: NUREG-0933; USI A-43 DISCUSSION: Evaluate safety concerns dealing with post-accident conditions which could degrade long term recirculation capability. ISAP: See how much of the proposed resolution of this topic can be incorporated into IA. TOPIC: 1.48 Safety Factor for Penetration X-10A SOURCE: Operating Experience DISCUSSION: Following water hammer in 1979, the licensee was to evaluate the assumed degradation of penetration X-10A (IC supply line) ISAP: Complete evaluation. TOPIC: 1.49 RV Surveillance Program j ISAP: Deleted 4 O TOPIC: 2.01 LPCI Remotely Operated Valves 1-LP-50A and B SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Propose remote operation capability for torus drain valves to ensure drain capability even in high radiation fields ISAP: Schedule implementation ~ TOPIC: 2.02 Drywell Humidity Instrumentation SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: ' Provide capability for continuous leak detection monitoring. ISAP: Schedule implementation TOPIC: 2.03 Process Computer Replacement SOURCE: NU(NRCSPDS) DISCUSSION: Replace present hardware with a new unit that will be able to interact with SPDS ISAP: ScheduleA mplementation TOPIC: 2.04 High Steam Flow Setpoint Increase SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Reset MSIV closure setpoint to 140% steam flow to allow full power testing of turbine stop valves. ISAP: Schedule Implementation w
V
/ 4 TOPIC: 2.05 Hydrc SOURCE: NV (IGSCC) gen Water Chemistry Study O DISCUSSION: Study feasibility of altering primary water chemistry by in,jecting hydrogen ISAP: Schedule Study TOPIC: 2.06 Condenser Retube SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Increase plant availability by reducing condenser leakage by retubing with titanium. ,
ISAP: Schedule implementation TOPIC: T.07 Sodium Hypochlorite System i SOURCE: NU 4
' DISCUSSION: Reduce Public risk by replacing chlorine by sodium hypochlorite in seawater biofouling control system.
ISAP: Schedule implementation TOPIC: 2.08 Extraction Steam Piping Replacement SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Stage Extraction Piping is susceptible to steam erosion. Propose replacement cf degraded piping. ISAP: Schedule implementation. TOPIC: 2.09 Upgrading of PSIDs SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Upgrade existing P& ids (Part of FSAR update) ISAP: Integrate the July 1,1986 required date with other schedules. TOPIC: 2.10 Drywell Ventilation System ' SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Perform evaluation to determine most cost effective method of reducing drywell air temperature. ' ISAP: Schedule Study
, j \
TOPIC: 2.11 Stud Tensioners SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Replace manual stud tensioners with automatic system to reduce exposure and outage time ISAP: Schedule impletentation. ' I TOPIC: 2.12 RV Head Stand Relocation SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Because of crane modification putting RV head on stand s manual assistance. Propose stand relocation to line up O ISAP: crane with stand. Schedule implementation-YI s F - - - -
l TOPIC: 2.13 Turbine Water Induction Mods, SOURCE: NU e)
\,_, DISCUSSION: Cancelled ISAP: l TOPIC: 2.14 Evaluation and Implementation of NUREG-0577 SOURCE: NU; USI A-12 DISCUSSION: Evaluate potential for low fracture toughness of supports ISAP: Complete, NA.
TOPIC: 2,15 Torque switch modifications for MOVs SOURCE: NU; IE 84-10, 85-50 DISCUSSION: Determinc if MOV torque switches are set below manufacturers recommendation. Evaluate limitorque M0s as in IE 85-50. ISAP: Schedule study. TOPIC: 2.16 Reactor Protection Trip System SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Evaluate setpoint drift concerns in ADS and ECCS ISAP: Schedule study P 17 4.16RV, 480V and 125Vdc Plant Distribution Protection DISCUSSION: Perform breaker coordination study in excess of Appendix R requirements. ISAP: Schedule study TOPIC: 2.18 Spent Fuel Storage Racks / Transportation Cask SOURCE: NU; NWPACT DISCUSSION: Evaluate means to increase spent fuel storage capacity (lose full core capability in 1987, reload discharge capability in 1991) ISAP: Schedule study TOPIC: 2.19 DC System Review SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Cancelled TOPIC: 2.20 RWCU System Isolation Setpoint Reduction SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Evaluate lower isolation setpoint to have RWCU available for decay heat removal and clean-up followup scram. ISAP: Schedule study O V 9 F
, , , , _ - , - , , - - - -,,g-,- -
. TOPIC: 2.21 480V Load Center Replacement p) s SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Replace of-filled breaker trip devices with solid state breakers ISAP: Schedu!e implementation TOPIC: 2.22 CRD System Water Hansner SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Evaluate the potential for water hammer loads in CRD scram piping ISAP: Schedule study TOPIC: 2.23 Inst., Service and Breathing Air System Improvements SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Engineering review of air e,ystems to improve reliability and integrity ISAP: Schedule study TOPIC: 2.24 Offsite Power Systens SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Installation of 345RV breaker, slow speed bus transfer systems, main generator disconnect device, full capacity
, station RSS transformer, modification of flander 23 kv line. ISAP: Schedule implementation O TOPIC: 2.25 Drywell Temperature Monitoring System Upgrade SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Upgrade air temperature monitoring system to facilitate verification of compliance with 10 CFR 50.49 and possibly eliminate some conservatism in agins calculations. ISAP: Schedule implementation TOPIC: 2.26 Reliability Equipment SOURCE: NU DISCUSSI01: Procurement of computerized UT equipment, vibration monitoring and diagnostic equipment, etc. for performing NDT. ISAP: Schedule purchase TOPIC: 2.27 Spare Recirculation Pump Motor SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Expedite replacement of worn pump motors ISAP: Schedule implementation O u
^
TOPIC: 2.28 Long-term cooling study SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: PSS determined that 64% of core melt frequency is due to failure to maintain long-term decay heat removal. Proposed project is a study of long-term cooling capability for system improvement. ISAP: Schedule study TOPIC: 2.29 FWCI Assessment Study SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Examine drawings and design against as-built system, compare system description against verified design, identify limits of operation, review assumptions of FW control system against design basis transients. ISAP: Schedule study TOPIC: 2.30 MSIV Closure Test Frequency SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Change test procedures to require test for 10% MSIV closure to be conducted in conjunction with quarterly MSIV closure stroke test. ISAP: Schedule revision g- TOPIC: 2.31 LPCI Lube Oil Cooler Test Frequency i SOURCE: NU DISCUSSION: Change testing procedure of LPCI system to confirm that solenoid valve controlling LPCI pump motor bearing lube oil is open ISAP: Schedule revision
/s V
NRR STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE O ACRS
SUBJECT:
REGULATORY GUIDE 1.149 DATE: December 5,1985
}
PRESENTERi Jerry t'achtel O PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH /DIV: Traininq and Assessnent snecialist Operator Licensino Branch Division of !!unan Factors Technolony PRESENTER'S NRC TEL. NO.: 492-9595 SUBCOMMITTEE: i O _ - . - __--__ .- - -- - - - - - . - - O
i 3 . - j i O 4 a 1 REGULATORY GUIDE 1.149
" NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SIMULATION FACILITIES FOR USE
- IN OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATIONS" ENDORSES ANS 3.5, 1985 WITH EXCEPTIONS i
O
- PROVIDES 4-YEAR PHASED IMPLEMENTATION f PROVIDES SPECIFIC LISTING 0F
- ABNORMAL / EMERGENCY EVENTS TO BE TESTED TO l VERIFY PERFORMANCE PROVIDES GUIDELINES FOR FACILITY LICENSEES WHO WISH TO USE ONE SIMULATION FACILITY FOR MORE THAN ONE UNIT i
= l 12/5/85 lo c
. _ _ _ . . . - __._.__ _ . . . .- _. _ - = . - _ . . .._ _.
4 !O i : I . REGULATORY GUIDE 1.149 - , MAJOR EXCEPTIONS TO ANS 3.5, 1985 i } APPLIES TO OPERATING TESTS i PART-TASK / LIMITED-SCOPE SIMULATORS INCLUDED DEFINITION OF " REFERENCE PLANT" ALSO APPLIES TO UNIT I' I
- PERFORMANCE AND OPERABILITY TESTS SHOULD INCLUDE ALL O PROVISIONS OF APPENDICES PERFORMANCE TESTING SHOULD BE PERFORMED 25% PER YEAR OVER A 4-YEAR CYCLE 1
i l ' 1 i , i : 12/5/85 i ! i r O i
l 1 O i REGULATORY GUIDE 1,149 FOUR-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PHASE-IN PROVIDE " SIMULATOR INFORMATION" AND " SIMULATOR DESIGN DATA" WITHIN 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULE
; , 1 l CONDUCT AND DOCUMENT " SIMULATOR TESTS" WITHIN 3 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULE
!O SIMULATION FACILITY TO BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ANS 3,5 AS MODIFIED BY R.G. 1,149 WITHIN 4 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
- RULE I i i
l l t i !O 12/5/85
.-. ___-,-_-.__.~,__-_....._-----..,__,..___._,-..__._,_.m,--__.-_._ ,. - . . . _ _ , . . _ , , .
l
- O
- REGULATORY GUIDE 1.149 PERFORMANCE TESTING ABNORMAL EVENTS (21)
PWR EMERGENCY EVENTS (50) BWR EMERGENCY EVENTS (35) O 12/5/85 O i 1 (
, . , - - , , - - , ..,,,,-.,.,.n,,-.-,.-a-,.,,-n----r,----. .n-, ,.n,
.a--- - . ,-.
i i ; L' O i.. i REGULATORY GUIDE 1,149 t j USE OF SIMULATION FACILITY AT MORE THAN ONE UNIT !
- GUIDANCE'SIMILAR TO THAT IN USE FOR DUAL LICENSES
- SUMMARIZE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EACH UNIT AND SIMULATION j FACILITY RE:
- FACILITY,D.ESIGN a SYSTEMS
! - TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS i i O - eROCeDURES 9 i ! .' - CONTROL ROOM DESIGN t
- - OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 4 I I-i
I < I ! l i i 4 !O 12/s/8s . ].
. , . , _ , _ - . _ - - _ . . - _ . . . . . _ . . . - . . . , _ _ , , _ . , . . . , - _ , . . . _ _ . . . . _ - - . , , . , _ . , _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ , = . . . . . ~ , _ . . _ , _ . ~
, NRR STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE o ACRS .
I
SUBJECT:
REGULATORY GUIDE 1.8
" Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plant" DATE: December 5, 1985 PRESENTER: J. J. Persensky O~
PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH /DIV: section Leader flaintenance and Training Branch Division of Human Factors Technology PRESENTER'S NRC TEL. NO.: 492-4892 SUBCOMMITTEE: 1
I 1 O REGULATORY GUIDE 1.8 REVISION 2 QUALIFICATION AND TRAINING OF O PERSONNEL FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 12/5/85 i O
!' i j r. o : i i ; ! REGULATORY GUIDE 1,8 i i ENDORSES, WITH CLARIFICATIONS, ADDITIONS, AND EXCEPTIONS, ANSI /ANS 3.1-1981 FOR LICENSED OPERATOR POSITIONS j l SUPPORTS PROPOSED CHANGES TO 10 CFR 55 O PROVIDES CLARIFICATION FOR STA POSITION-INCLUDING POLICY
; STATEMENT ON ENGINEERING EXPERTISE ON SHIFT i
CONTINUES ENDORSEMENT OF ANSI /ANS N18.1-1971 FOR ALL OTHER 4 POSITIONS (R.G. 1.8-1975) l LIMITED BY COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT ON TRAINING AND j QUALIFICATIONS l1 i
- O
t
/^)T \~
REGULATORY GUIDE 1.8 LICENSED OPERATORS (R0, SRO, SS) - ENDORSES ANSI /ANS 3.1-1981 WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS, CLARIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS REGULATORY POSITION 1 a. NRC SHALL APPROVE TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR COLD LICENSE APPLICANTS
- c. THE EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR SS AND SR0 IS LIMITED TO A
(]) HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
- d. INCREASES POWER PLANT EXPERIENCE FOR SR0 FROM 3 TO 4 YEARS, WITH AT LEAST 6 MONTHS AT THE SPECIFIC PLANT
- d. SR0 APPLICANTS (WITHOUT A DEGREE IN ENGINEERING OR EQUIVALENT) SHOULD HAVE HELD AN OPERATOR'S LICENSE AND BEEN ACTIVELY PERFORMING LICENSED DUTIES FOR AT LEAST 1 YEAR
- g. DEFINES - MANIPULATION OF CONTROLS DURING A SIGNIFICANT REACTIVITY CHANGES
- 1. DESCRIBES PERFORMANCE-BASED REFRESHER TRAINING FOR LICENSED OPERATORS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACTIVELY PERFORMING LICENSED FUNCTIONS O
l t !O l REGULATORY GUIDE 1.8 l POSITIONS OTHER'THAN LICENSED OPERATORS-ENDORSES, ANSI N18.1-1971 WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS, i CLARIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS REGULATORY-POSITION 1 b. & STA IS REQUIRED ON ALL SHIFTS AND SHOULD ASSUME AN ACTIVE 2 a. ROLE IN SHIFT ACTIVITIES, EXCEPT WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY STATEMENT ON ENGINEERING EXPERTISE ON SHIFT ARE MET ] 2 a. STA SHOULD HAVE A BACHELOR'S DEGREE OR EQUIVALENT IN l l ENGINEERING OR A RELATED SCIENCE
- O b, DESCRIBES QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING 8 EXPERIENCE FOR i
. THE RPM ! c. CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL MUST MEET QUALIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS OF POSITIONS THEY FILL 4 i O I , 4
I- !O
- t j OPERATOR LICENSING SUPPORT OF INDUSTRY INITIATIVES ;
j NRC APPROVAL OF INDUSTRY ACCREDITED TRAINING PROGRAMS 4
- NRC APPROVAL 0F REQUALIFICATION PROGRAMS BASED UPON SYSTEMS j APPROACH TO TRAINING i
NRC ACCEPTANCE OF SUCCESSFUL TRAINING PROGRAM COMPLETION IN
! LIEU OF SPECIFIC ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA (EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING) l CURRENT NRC INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION DEFERRED AT FACILITIES O WITH INDUSTRY ACCREDITATION i NRC EXAMINATION DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS BASED UPON INP0 JTA AND FACILITY LEARNING OBJECTIVES LICENSE RENEWAL BASED UPON SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF i APPROVED REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM j NRC ACCEPTANCE OF FACILITY LICENSEE CERTIFICATION OF MEDICAL l
} ELIGIBILITY (ANS 3.4) AND SIMULATION FACILITY CAPABILITIES ! l (ANS 3.5) ! I } l i i i i i 12/5/85 i , I
i . j i i , i l O i i i i
- REGULATORY GUIDE 1.8 >
1 ' ! IMPLEMENTATION 8 APPLICATION - 1 i ! j THE METHOD DESCRIBED IN THIS GUIDE WILL BE USED 1 YEAR AFTER ITS !
! PUBLICATION IN THE EVALUATION OF: !
i i THE QUALIFICATIONS a TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR NPP PERSONNEL i i O AS DESCRIBED IN FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATIONS THE QUALIFICATIONS a TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICANTS FOR j OPERATOR AND SENIOR OPERATOR LICENSES , i i ! THE QUALIFICATIONS & TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR REPLACEMENT : I PERSONNEL IN POSITIONS NOT YET ACCREDITED BY INP0 l i 4 e l- !O 1 l l
- . - _ , . _ _ _ . ., .... _ ---. . --. ~ .- - _ ,_.--_ _ ,_. _ ,- , - -_ _ _ . _ .-
NRR STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE O ACRS ! l
SUBJECT:
FINAL REVISIONS TO 10CFR55 DATE: December 5,1985 PRESENTER: Bruce A. Boner, Chief s"'*" S"^"'* " O 0.erator n Licensing Branch PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH /DIV: Division of Human Factors Technolony PRESENTER'S NRC TEL. NO.: 492-4868 SUBCOMMITTEE: O
O OPERATOR LICENSING RULEMAKING
- 10 CFR PART 55, "0PERATORS' LICENSES"
- 10 CFR PART 50, " DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTI AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES"
- REGULATORY GUIDE 1.134, " MEDICAL EVALUATION OF LICENSED PERSONNEL FOR NUCLEAR POWE
- REGULATORY GUIDE 1.149, " NUCLEAR POWER PLA FACILITIES FOR USE IN OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATIONS"
[]) "
- REGULATORY GUIDE 1.8, " QUALIFICATIONS AND TRA PERSONNEL FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" RULE CHANGE SUPPORT OF INDUSTRY ACTIVIT 12/5/85
( , e P
..,..,---e.. ,--..+,~,-,--e-o--,--.-,---+.-----+.-#,4-w,---,,,--,----,---.*,-.w--,v--- -t-.--,,,w.~----mor--
l
- i i
t O : m OPERATOR LICENSING RULEMAKING POST TMI-2 CHANGES (MARCH 982) 1980) l 1 i
- HUMAN FACTORS PROGRAM983) PLAN DEV l
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT, SECTION 30 CENSING AND l EAR POWER l l
- SECY 84-76, PROPOSED RULE l PLANT PERSONNEL (FEBRUARY 1984)
COMMISSION ACTION ON SECY 84- T OPERATOR LICENSING RULEMAKIN l (NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 1984) NUCLEAR l I POLICY STATEMENT ON TRAINING ' POWER PLANT PERSONNEL (MARCH 1985) COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED (MARCH 1985) l'
- RESOLUTION OF COMMENTS 1
l l i 12/s/8s l O , i
O OPERATOR LICENSING RULEMAKING COMMENT RESOLUTION DISTRIBUTION OF PROPOSED RULE 1600 COMMENTS / 135 COMMENTERS REGIONAL OPERATOR LICENSING INPUT POLICY STATEMENT ON TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PERSONNEL O O 12/5/85
O OPERATOR LICENSING SUPPORT OF INDUSTRY INITIATIVES NRC APPROVAL OF INDUSTRY ACCREDITED TRAINING PROGRAMS NRC APPROVAL OF REQUAllFICATION PROGRAMS BASED UPON SYSTEMS APPROACH TO TRAINING NRC ACCEPTANCE OF SUCCESSFUL TRAINING PROGRAM COMPLETION IN LIEU OF SPECIFIC ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA (EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING) CURRENT NRC INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATION DEFERRED AT FACILITIES WITH INDUSTRY ACCREDITATION (]) NRC EXAMINATION DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS BASED UPON INP0 JTA AND FACILITY LEARNING OBJECTIVES LICENSE RENEWAL BASED UPON SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF APPROVED REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM NRC ACCEPTANCE OF FACILITY LICENSEE CERTIFICATION OF MEDICAL ELIGIBILITY (ANS 3,4) AND SIMULATION FACILITY CAPABILITIES (ANS 3.5) O . 12/5/85
o l O WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS EVISED QJFFfhT BASED ON LIST 0F REVISED BASED CN LIST OF CATEGORIES IN CATEGORIES IN PART 55 110 PART 55 (JD RTEG 0737 IM) FACILITY LEAFNING FutRNCE FATERIAL ELATED TO OBJECTI'ES DERMD FROM SECIFIC FACILITY SYSTEPATIC ANALYSIS T LICENSED OPEPATOR DUTIES 12/5/85 l i
-- -__- d- _. _-_ ___.a._ _ -
G 9 e e, g 0 E s S m a E eIEl g s ii ss - 8 is 5s
$ g5
!!u s: @ h5i w ! g
~g g @9 RW. s M l () , p p g a
' S < 1 l g es Eh i te n a ! p :$ l 4$ l. . I
~
O O O l l SIMLATION FACILITY i FOR PARTIAL CONDUCT OF OPEPATING TEST NEW CLRRENT SIHLATION FACILITY NO EWIR&BT ACCEPTABLE TO NRC EWIRED BY FOUR YEARS AFTER EFFECTIE DATE OF RULE r 12/5/85
d
;O PART 55,45 (B): OPERATING TESTS - ADMINISTRATION WITilIN ONE YEAR, EITHER:
- CERTIFY A SI R AT10N FACILITY CONSISTING SOLELY OF J
A PLANT-REFERENCED SIEATOR, OR I
- StBilT A PLAN FOR DEVELOPENT OF A SIRATION FACILIT(, FOR NRC APPROVAL
- i FOR CERTIFIEI) SIPtJLATION FACILITIES 2 INITIAL CERTIFICATION i :
1 *
- ANNUAL RECURRENT CERTIFICATION I
i l O
- FOR OTHER S!ft!LAT10N FACILITIES
) INITIAL APPLICATION i C0FEISSION APPROVAL :
- AfMJAL REPORT MAINTAIN DATA FOR 4 YEAPS NRC MAY AUDIT AND MAY WITHDRAW ACCEPTANCE / APPROVAL AT Af# T 4
12/5/85 i O 4
~.
~,- , i 7;
; e PJ .. .
- I 44 w * ,
j
. ~,,
'b, REQUALIFICATION
/'
NRC, APPROVED PROGRAM ^ f
.7 ,
*~
v .
~
12 ,24 MONTH CYCLE - . - COMPREHENSIVE BIF,NNIAL WRITTEN EXAMINATION (LEARNING OB3ECTIVES) , i i
* ~
ANNUAL OPERATING TEST a ..
~
., . n- '- , ' -
/ .-
T k '
" PROGRAM- CONTENT: -
, /. . .
- APPENDIX A - NOW 55.59(C) --
OR - ,,
& s SYSTEMS APPROACH TO TRAINING
. v
. t
- f W l ,5
~' *
} /
- u -...
W w &
,# 4 .ms
-~
4m .4s #9" f' Qm 0
+
.,*' y e
/ s s -~
12'i5/85 (o) ;. E r I
*6%
___-__--._.-.__-.--_--_--___-------._--_____if- _ _ -
'd t' O l OTHER CHANGES STREAMLINE APPLICATION PROCESS LICENSE DURATION INCREASED TO SIX YEARS MEDICAL CERTIFICATION BY FACILITY
" ACTIVELY PERFORMING ... " CLARIFIED INTEGRITY OF EXAMINATIONS AND TESTS NOTIFICATION OF NRC 12/5/85 )
1 O NRR STAFF PRESENTATION TO THE. ACRS i
SUBJECT:
REGULATORY GUIDE 1.134 Decenber 5, 1985 DATE:
)
l O PRESENTER: S. Shanknan Traininq and Assessment Snecialist PRESENTER'S TITLE / BRANCH /DIV: onerator Licensinn Branch Division of Hunan Factors Technoloov
\
492-9806 PRESENTER'S NRC TEL. NO.: i SUBCOMMITTEE: l O
" ~ ~ --,, ,,,_, _
0 REGULATORY GUIDE 1.134 ENDORSES MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS IN ANSI /ANS 3,4 - 1983
" MEDICAL CERTIFICATION AND MONITORING OF PERSONNEL REQUIRING OPERATOR LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT EXCEPT:
- LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH PRACTITIONER "N0 SOLO" OUALIFIED PERSON SHOULD BE LICENSED
- DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT RESUMPTION OF DUTIES AFTER DISABILITY OF 30 DAYS OR LONGER 12/5/85 O
o ' O O MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION : UNIT NO.1 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON . REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4 MEETING ON j FULL-TERM OPERATING LICENSE DECEMBER 5,1985 1-1 l
^
O O O . ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MEETING MILLSTONE UNIT NO.1 DECEMBER 4 - 5,1985 NORTHEAST UTILITIES REPRESENTATIVES: i MICHAEL P. BAIN GENERATION FACILITIES LICENSING DR. JOHN H. BICKEL SUPERVISOR, PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT i RICHARD M. KACICH SUPERVISOR, OPERATING NUCLEAR PLANT LICENSING MITCHELL S. LEDERMAN GENERATION FACILITIES LICENSING i WAYNE D. ROMBERG MILLSTONE STATION SUPERINTENDENT JOHN P. STETZ SUPERINTENDENT, MILLSTONE UNIT 1 1 L LTJ I-2
m --_ . _ _ _ _ . -__a_u __ w - .. ---.. -mi.- ---- --u.. .,a -- O 7
- m '
Y b
- cza CE LIJ l O
- J O Z O
4 , N 1 Z 4
- 0 cc
! O ; I O.
^
r0 "O d . 1 CORPORATE MISSION STATEMENT EXCERPT
" NORTHEAST UTILITIES IS DEDICATED TO PROVIDING SAFE, DEPENDABLE AND REASONABLY PRICED ENERGY AND RELATED SERVICES . . ."
NU I f4
'o o e)
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS GROUP NUCLEAR POLICY EXCERPT .
... NORTHEAST UTILITIES FULLY RECOGNIZES ITS RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACCOUNTABILITIES TO OPERATE ITS NUCLEAR PLANTS SAFELY, EFFECTIVELY i AND WITH A MINIMUM IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND THE HEALTH AND S AFETY OF COMPANY PERSONNEL."
NU I-5
O O O t W.B. ELUS
\
CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER E.J. FERLAND PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPEFIATING OFFICER N W.F. FEE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS I J.F. OPEKA N SENIOR VICE PFIESIDENT NUCLEAR ENGirIEERING AND OPERATIONS 66 m b 1 I I I I R.P. WERNER
\ C.F. SEARS 5 l l E.J. MROCZKA ,
VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT g l VICE PRESIDENT NUCLEAR AND GENERATION ENGINEEFilNG I HUCLEAll OPERATIONS AND CONSTFlUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING l g ,_ _ , _ .m wi- -h -m B A S OUALITY NUCLEAR ASSURANCE I FIEVIEW BOAIIDS l L LTa 1-6
- - - ~ ~ - - - - -- ,,
, , _ _ , - - - _ a ,4- .g, , _ _ _ _ , -
~
'O O O NUCLEAR OPERATIONS DIVISION E.J. MROCZKA VICE PRESIDENT NUCLEAR OPERATIONS I
W. D. ROMBERG SUPERINTENDENT MILLSTONE STATION J.P. STETZ S.E.SCACE J.O. CROCKETT J.J.KELLEY UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 STATION SUPERINTENDENT SUPERINTENDENT SUPERINTENDENT SERVICES SUPERINTENDENT 1-7 l l
O O O NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND i OPERATIONS GROUP TOTAL STAFF 2020 MANAGEMENT 276 PROFESSIONAL 615 TECHNICAL 681 OPERATORS 216 CRAFT 50 ,
- ADMINISTRATIVE 182
- DEGREE DISTRIBUTION 1050 l ASSOCIATE 231 BACHELOR OF ARTS 42 BACHELOR OF SCIENCE 537 j MASTERS 218 PHD 22 I
TOTAL YEARS OF NUCLEAR EXPERIENCE 14,060
- MILITARY 3780 ENGINEERING 7530 '
l l PLANT OPERATION 2750 .
' 'l" l-8 i
i
'O O O ,
I SIMULATORS COMMITMENT TO FOUR PLANT - SPECIFIC SIMULATORS UNIT ORDERED OPERATIONAL l MILLSTONE 3 JULY,1982 FEBRUARY,1985 i ! MILLSTONE 2 JULY,1982 AUGUST,1985 MILLSTONE 1 JULY,1982 FIRST QTR.,1986 CONN YANKEE JULY,1982 FIRST QTR.,1986 I TOTAL COST: $54 MILLION , t I 1 l L eT; j se o o
e _ ._ ww.,-. n.- a __- 2 w m.. --- -- -m---- . _. - . - - _ - - - - - - - - -
.O M
EC2 1 Z 4 w , 2 H O DE zz O O
<C cc CL O
O
,,,e.-
9 9 9 WHY NU 18 PURSUING A LIVING PRA PROGRAM: ) NU BELIEVES IN-HOUSE PRA CAPABILITY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVES OUR ABILITY TO SAFELY MANAGE OUR PLANTS l i c I . 11-2 4
NU CORPORATE OBJECTIVE: DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN LIVING PRA MODELS FOR USE IN
- PLANT DESIGN CHANGE - SAFETY EVALUATIONS e TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION - SAFETY EVALUATIONS I
e INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM b 11-3
O O' O. 1 NU COMMITMENT TO PRA e THE VALUE OF PRA WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE NU PRA ' TASK FORCE IN 1981. e THE CAPABILITY OF PERFORMING, MAINTAINING AND UTILIZING PRA WAS DEVELOPED AT NU DURING 1982 ! AND 1983 BY PERFORMING WITH WESTINGHOUSE THE MILLSTONE UNIT 3 PSS. l l e A 1984 NU CORPORATE GOAL COMMITTED TO IN . HOUSE ' PERFORMANCE, MAINTENANCE AND UTILIZATION OF PRA !' IN SUPPORT OF ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS. t J l II-4
'O O' O
~
SIGNIFICANCE OF PRA TO NU i e PRA PROVIDES A VERIFICATION TOOL OF PLANT l DETERMINISTIC DESIGN OBJECTIVES.
- PRA HAS DEVELOPED AN ENGINEERING STAFF HIGHLY CONVERSANT WITH PLANT-SAFETY OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE.
e PRA DEVELOPS A DYNAMIC PLANT MODEL CAPABLE OF l DESCRIBING INTEGRATED SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND i CREDIBLE TO THE PLANT OPERATING STAFF. l i L L_ ; ). 11-5 i
O o' o SIGNIFICANCE OF PRA TO NU e PRA REPRESENTS A VALUABLE ENGINEERING TOOL FOR IDENTIFYING RISK CONTRIBUTORS, FOR SUPPORTING . DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO SAFETY AND FOR EVALUATING THE PLANTS AGAINST NU SAFETY GOALS. , > e PRA PROVIDES QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENTS IN SUPPORT OF QUALITATIVE ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT. e PRA FACILITATES THE EVALUATION OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE TO SAFETY OF PLANT FEATURES AND RISK OUTLIERS.
- PRA PROVIDES AN ENGINEERING TOOL FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF A DESIGN CHANGE.
e 11-6
9
~
O O O NU LIMITED SCOPE PRA STUDIES YEAR TITLE PLANT 1977-78 MP1 DECAY HEAT REMOVAL STUDY 1979-81 CY DECAY HEAT REMOVAL STUDY CY 1981-82 APPENDIX R STUDIES MP1 MP2 CY 1983 MP2 HEAVY LOADS (NUREG-0612) 1983 MP3 BORON DILUTION i I l L LT; f II-7
O O
'O .
NU PLANT - SPECIFIC PRA STUDIES MILLSTONE 3 1983 MILLSTONE 1 1985 CONNECTICUT YANKEE 1986 l MILLSTONE 2 1987 - 1988 i , L L- a
}
11-8
O O O NU PRA MILESTONES LIVING PRA PROGRAM (ON-GOINQ; MILLSTONE 2,
- NUSCO PRA TASK FORCE "" aal I
ISAP PROGHAM LEVEL 1PSS NU SAFETY GOAL POLICY M LSTONE1 STATEMENT LEVEL 9PSS S CTION MILLSTONE 3 F 08 MAL D LEVEL 3 PSS PDA IF* TMI ACCIDENT Nac MsLLSTONE 1 mEP LIMiiED SCOPE & II PRA EVALU ATIONS 7 r , MILLSTONE 1 DHRS 1976 37 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 HURRICANE DELLE (8 / 78) 3 L LT; 11-9 .
'D O O FACILITY DESCRIPTION l
e PLANT FEATURES \ e DESCRIPTION OF DECAY HEAT REMOVAL METHODS l e OPERATING HISTORY i ) e MAJOR MODIFICATIONS SIMCE I POL ISSUANCE i
- < m9>
i III-1 i
.a5 O -
n 1 V,i l N 1 2 w_ q i - 0 o, C' _ q
-[jj I I I 1
n 2 nf ,. 3 .j - Y ~$hA b_ n If I i
~
,d e . Il -)l
- m. - ,
f fc i i111 -
) (Dl If k
~
w
" l s, / fo". ,.
1 ll
!! I i
-hn O ! s=
. J l,
1; m e=am: . l [' (f n >' i
!Il [-
- y. ' ~
17" i a \J 1 - c ln,i O 'n ) O m.
O O O 9 4 l l MILLSTONE UNIT I l PLANT FEATURES i i ! e GENERAL ELECTRIC BWR-3 2,011 MW THERMAL,680 MW ELECTRIC MARK I PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT CONSTRUCTED BY EBASCO 2 LOOPS WITH JET PUMPS 3 ELECTRIC FEEDWATER PUMPS (SAFETY GRADE) ONCE-THROUGH COOLING WITH LONG ISLAND SOUND i l e ONSITE EMERGENCY POWER SYSTEM i - DIESEL GENERATOR f - GAS TURBINE GENERATOR (POWER FOR FWCI) i l ,- ! III-3
O O
~O MILLSTONE UNIT I l
PLANT FEATURES 1 l l
- EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEMS l
FEEDWATER COOLANT INJECTION SYSTEM (FWCI) TWO 100% CORE SPRAY PUMPS ' l - FOUR 33% LPCI PUMPS j - AUTOMATIC PRESSURE RELIEF SYSTEM (4 APR VALVES) i l ISOLATION CONDENSER i e 100% TURBINE BYPASS CAPABILITY l PLANT WILL RIDE OUT FULL LOAD REJECT WITilOUT SCRAM TURBINE RUNBACK TO HOUSE LOAD i I 1 t i ! ! III fi I i
- - - .- # - _ , _ _ a -2 -
- - - . - - . - - - -- m ._ _-
u e5 .= um m U (d ,, it N U
/\
5
! -b %
m
=
--i Fg _.
d m d C :: g
-+4-~ l I C -
i Ea n i i 35 '% - EE g I' 58 it:
- - o
, EG-
~ o z- ,
M
=
as Og .6 % E
$ -s.
2 ___ , / a.:
.o s,.
. . p ,
-m .. _
v 5 Y, , f [ y A ' 5 g9 b O o [(..IlI % ) ( E 4> -,
~ "
L- % c 9 3 y 7,
,, d .:.
(4 : g , N v . E a I a N
# e es e w
"-u db ii c3_
-I} '
-cD- s i
- -s
. I ,,
o :. -1 I
- _,
- I is c5 95 -
y S .
$$ 06 A $
I EE 25 5E , y ag
= y ,
o
) -
. f e
8 2 w o W to i
l 1 O o o . l DECAY HEAT REMOVAL METHODS i
- 1. FEEDWATER/ CONDENSER MATCHES DECAY HEAT IMMEDIATELY ,
- 2. S/R VALVES MATCH DECAY HEAT IMMEDIATELY TORUS ACTS AS HEAT SINK 3 ISO CONDENSER MATCHES DECAY HEAT IN 3-5 MINUTES !
l - ) 3. S/R VALVES AND FEEDWATER MATCH DECAY HEAT IMMEDIATELY i TORUS ACTS AS HEAT SINK 2 SDC TRAINS MATCH DECAY HEAT IN ~ 10 MINUTES I j 4. S/R VALVES AND FEEDWATER M TCH DECAY HEAT IMMEDIATELY ! TORUS ACTS AS HEAT SINK ! 1 SDC TRAIN MATCHES DECAY HEAT IN ~ 2 HOURS i 1 L l tT; ! III-6 I
O O O DECAY HEAT REMOVAL METHODS .
.s I
\ '
l
/ ,
i i '. . 5. S/R VALVES MATCH DECAY HEAT IMMEDIATELY TORUS ACTS 'dS HEAT SINK ,.
', 2 LPCiiHTX MATCH DECAY HEAT IN 1.5 - 2 HOURS .
e t p . . l
' 6. S/R VALVES MATCH DECAY HEAT IMMEDIATELY .
( IORUS ACTS AS HEAT SINK i '- ! 1 LPCI HTX MATCH DECAY HEAT AT 14-20 / HOURS \ . 7'. RWCU MATCHES DECAY HEAT AT 17-19 HOURS e, 5s , f t j t c4 - -
'N \1
? '
s k LIJ 1 j . 1
O O
'O 1
i
- MILLSTONE UNIT 1 UNIT HISTORY
! CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION CONSTRUCTION START: MAY 1966 POL ISSUED: OCTOBER 7,1970 9
INITIAL CRITICAL: OCTOBER 26,1970 INITIAL ON-LINE: NOVEMBER 29,1970 COMMERCIAL OPERATION: DECEMBER 1970 I 100% POWER: JANUARY 3,1971
- APPLICATION FOR FTOL: SEPTEMBER 1,1972 III-8 1
l
'O O O MILLSTONE UNIT 1 l UNIT HISTORY MAJOR OUTAGES START DATE DURATION (DAYS) 4 FIRST REFUEL: SEPTEMBER 1,1972 190 .
FIRST F.W. SPARGER REPLACEMENT: APRIL 18,1973 102 SECOND REFUEL: SEPTEMBER 1,1974 - 63
- THIRD REFUEL: SEPTEMBER 14,1975 35
~ FOURTH REFUEL: OCTOBER 'i,1976 60 I
FIFTH REFUEL: MARCH 10,1978 36 SIXTH REFUEL: , APRIL 28,1979 61 i SEVENTH REFUEL: OCTOBER 4,1980 197 TURBINE OUTAGE: APRIL 21,1981 - 60 ElGHTH REFUEL: SEPTEMBER 11,1982 69 NINTH REFUEL: APRIL 14,1984 77 i TENTH REFUEL (IN PROGRESS): OCTOBER 26,1985 44 (EST.) _ 1 E .. l 4 t uf; ; (({_O I
p l 'O O ~O MILLSTONE UNIT 1 UNIT PERFORMANCE .l PERFORMANCE STATISTICS (LIFE TO DATE) MWE GENERATED: 60,586,296* (GROSS) , ! CAPACITY FACTOR: 67.5* AVAILABILITY: 75.0* i i
- *AS OF OCTOBER 31,1985.
l ' ,I III-10 i
O O
'O MILLSTONE UNIT 1
- e CUMULATIVE AVAILABILITY - 75%
e LOST AVAILABILITY BREAKDOWN REFUELING - 17% FORCED SHUTDOWNS - 8% EQUIPMENT FAILURE - 7% MAINTENANCE / TESTING - 0.6% REGULATORY REQUIRED - 0.3% OPERATOR ERROR - <0.1% 1 L L a 111-12 t-
O O
'O MILLSTONE UNIT NO.1 3
CAPACITY FACTOR AND AVAILABILITY 100 m AVAILABILITY FACTOFI 92.6 93.1 90 THRO H 10/ 31/ 85 gy 80 .' 7 70 # ' 75j 76d m
- 70 'E 65.6 k
~
E 9 su si.s ll 8 - j f' - i 51! : l : 3 , .,
,[
~
so su . 40 ; ;; 3g : ' g 1 [ ! 30 l '{
'20 L ,
l 10 g g
. .. 1 R R _ {ht 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985*
YEAR [ , l III-13 4
9 l NUMBER OF REPORTED EVENTS PEH YEAR AT MILLSTONE 1 NUMBER OF REPORTED EVENTS 44 r 45 . 40 38 36 i _ 35 35 w. ~.e 32 < g'e. 30 31 ^
.i.:+:
,'..i
,.,:.)d,'
30 ,1, , 28 > @ ~Ee - 27
,w,a- n, \
F ^a * ' ', 25
* * ' ~
SA 25 W" ', ne @1.. M. . ... s
,m .^'"
Es ,< . 21 21* m'?sh
-' 4 -::;:1- ,
,ggg;.z; l
20 ', s . 4 .p::
-{'::::gm:
^
17 U:p._ : ;;: W~ x N'E ' s 5 1s-::P
^'v ,,
I .::::8:* / T 5' .:f.[ikhj s /, s- ' j a . :g.. 5 -- " **' 7" ' d.:d ' 15
' d*
'NN '+
J' .:.:.. . .:.:.: . ' . I:iit:5 . ... . :o) :- ,....
'v +v' ' ** 'm ** ~', -N^
. . . . . , ' v
+' #,:MiHW nMW * +- * &' '*
gef.Q@? t:':W9di: f(j * * ' j 10 ~w M* '
,; s - <
10
* ,>.s
t <
='
' , /, ,
,i'
*,e s e
't s Ms ,
a p -
'm ' : ', -
..: s , ,
, a,
.; er s _s w -
- ,. .s .e a , ,
3 , ,
. s4
[-
- :.j
# # + # :
( ,/ s % k( [ . . . ., :,.: y-: .I'!:% g ((;%'#..*'j: , 4 . ., , m. . < , ,
! 0 ! 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1 '
YEAR ' ' lJ
- YEAR TO DATE i
i O e * # e
0; O O 4 MILLSTONE UNIT I MAJOR UNIT MODIFICATIONS SINCE POL ISSUANCE o 8 X 8 RELOAD FUEL e HIGH ENERGY PIPE BREAK e OFF-GAS /RADWASTE SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS (ALARA) 4 e FEEDWATER SPARGER REPLACEMENTS e TORUS MODIFICATIONS e SEISMIC ANCHORAGE OF EQUIPMENT j e SEISMIC PIPE HANGERS (IE BULLETIN 79-14) e ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION / ENVIRONMENTAL ENCLOSURES 1 e MASONRY WALLS (IE BULLETIN 80-11) i, s l III-15 i J
'O O O MILLSTONE UNIT I MAJOR UNIT MODIFICATIONS SINCE POL ISSUANCE e SECURITY SYSTEMS i
- eATWS 4
o PLANT PROCESS COMPUTER o PLANT-SPECIFIC SIMULATOR . I o APPENDIX R
- PUBLIC ALERTING SYSTEM / EMERGENCY RESPONSE FACILITIES o SCRAM DISCHARGE VOLUME MODIFICATIONS i e CONDENSER RETUBE l
- NITROGEN COMPRESSOR SYSTEM i
j e ISOLATION CONDENSER UPGRADED TO ECCS h e POST ACCIDENT SAMPLE SYSTEM 3 , t III-16 i _ _ _ _ _ .. _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o Y D ] U
! 1 l V T
I O 1 S T T Y I NE UF E S A o N OC I T T S S LI LL I I MB A B O R P .o i! , : i 1 ;j Iilll ll . ;4l1 . .
O O
'O l DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN LIVING PRA
! MODELS FOR USE IN: l _, a o PLANT DESIGN CHANGE - SAFETY EVALUATIONS e TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION - SAFETY EVALUATIONS e INTEGRATED SAFETY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM i 1
< < l>
4
O O O DESIRED END PRODUCTS: ! e IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT SAFETY ISSUES .
- ENGINEERING INSIGHTS ON SAFETY ISSUES e LIVING MODEL FOR FUTURE SAFETY EVALUATIONS 1
e FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE EXTERNAL EVENTS MODELING I l l, .
' " l'
! IV-2 i i i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o 9 MILLSTONE UNIT I IREP NOT USED BECAUSE: 1 i e EASE OF MODEL USE i e DESIGN CHANGES (1980-1985) i
- IMPLEMENTATION OF SYMPTOM ORIENTED
!. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES I e MODELING DEFICIENCIES IN IREP f - INITIATORS SUCCESS CRITERIA
" GENERIC" VS. ACTUAL PLANT RELIABILITY
- NO COMMON CAUSE FAILURE ANALYSIS UNCOUPLED HUMAN ERRORS ,
L t 9a
. IV-3 I
'O O O SCOPE:
e '. LEVEL I PRA ! e LARGE EVENT TREE / LARGE FAULT TREE MODELING l e BEST ESTIMATE SAFETY ANALYSIS
~
e INITIATORS CONSIDERED: ANTICIPATED TRANSIENTS SYSTEM INTERACTIONS / CONTROL SYSTEM FAILURES DESIGN BASIS EVENTS I - BEYOND DESIGN BASIS EVENTS e MAXIMUM USE OF PLANT EXPERIENCE EVENT FREQUENCIES i - COMPONENT RELIABILITY SYSTEM RELIABILITY l SYSTEM MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME 1 i t
- IV Il i
i
i O O O l i COMPARISON OF MILLSTONE UNIT I DATA WITH WASH-1400 'I
.95 -
1 l MILLSTONE UNIT I i - BREAKERS WASil- 14 0 0
* ^' "
- .50 -
l 480V + i 1
.05 -
I I 10-4 10-3 - 10-2 1 i FAILURE RATE PER DEMAND . l IV-5
.O O 1
COMPARISON OF MILLSTONE UNIT I DATA WITH
.95 -
s i MILLSTONE UNIT I
< DIESEL
.50 -
WASil- 14 0 0
\
DIESEL ! t i I i ' 1
.05 --
I 10-3 I 10-2 10-1 1 b FAILURE RATE PER DEMAND - 1 i IV-6 i , i i I
.o o o CORE MELT FREQUENCY RESULTS:
j , l 1 PEACH BOTTOM MILLSTONE 1 MILLSTONE 1 (WASH- 14 00) (IREP) (PSS) i 2.13 X 10-5/YR. 3.3 X 10-4/YR. 8.07 X 10-4/YR. ] (MEDIAN) (MEDIAN) (MEAN) i i' l , L t J i IV-7 l l
O O O \ CORE MELT CONTRIBUTION BY INITIATORS e ) LOSS OF NORMAL POWER 30.13% ) e REACTOR TRANSIENTS
- WITH MAIN CONDENSER 11.28%
j - W/O MAIN CONDENSER 2.44% l - REACTOR TRIP 6.19% e LOSS OF FEEDWATER
~
i 12.04% l
- LOSS OF SERVICE WATER 4.91%
e LOSS OF R.B.C.C.W. 0.01%
}
e LOSS OF T.B.S.C.C.W. 0.26% 3 1 c S IV-8
'O O O 1
l CORE MELT CONTRIBUTION BY ll.'ITIATORS ' 1 l e SMALL SMALL LOCA (<0.01 FT 2 ) 5.14% . )
- SMALL LOCA -
i s (0.01 FT 2 < AREA < 0.2 FT 2 ) 20.84% ' i e LARGE LOCA 2.15% \ l
- INADVERTANT S / R VALVE ~
L OPERATION 3.71% 1 i i l 1 l . l Iv-9
l
~
~O O O l
CORE MELT BY INITIATORS 1 e IC TUBE RUPTURE 3 (UNISOLATED) 0.02% i ! e R.W.C.U. LOCA l (UNISOLATED) < 0.01 % . e INTERFACING SYSTEM LOCA ; ! L.P.C.I. < 0.01 % CORE SPRAY , 0.014% 4 ! i i eta IV-10
4 a
- ~
O O O i b t CORE MELT FREQUENCY BY SAFETY lSSUES 1 j e LONG TERM DECAY HEAT REMOVAL 64% ! i j e STATION AC BLACKOUT 12.01% i l GAS TURBINE / SERVICE WATER 6.66% i i GAS TURBINE / DIESEL 5.35% i I l i j -
EVENT FREQ. ~~~
PR LRES MILLSTONE UNIT
~~~ ] ' ^ T "' " ~ "~
RELIABILhTY) M DEL k
~~~~ tiblDWARE CSUCCESS CRITERIA DESIGN
~~~~
~
JL JL NRC DESIGN PUBLIC SAFETY CHANGES
- IMPACT MODEL l ------->- NU ISAP PROCESS 1 FUR tiler ANALYSIS MAKE CHANGES TO PLAtlT
- IV-15
o o O j MATRIX QUANTIFICATION PROCESS lj x M jk = Pk 1j = FREQUENCY OF THE J INITIATING EVENT l (1.E. LOSS OF FEEDWATER, TURBINE TRIP, ETC.) i M jk = CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF ENDING UP ! IN K" PLANT DAMAGE STATE, , I GIVEN J INITIATING EVENT. 1 4 l Pk = FREQUENCY OF K" PLANT DAMAGE STATE ! (i.E. EARLY CORE MELT / INTACT CONTAINMENT, i LATE CORE MELT / FAILED CONTAINMENT, ETC.) i I k 'l , ' IV-16 4
I o o O I \ l EVALUATION OF RISK IMPACT A RISK = T 1 A P k Ek
; k l
A RISK = CHANGE IN MAN-REM DUE TO l IMPLIMENTATION OF CHANGE 1 T = EXPOSURE PERIOD (1.E. REMAINING OPERATING YEARS) ) - APk = CHANGE IN THE K" PLANT DAMAGE STATE i FREQUENCY DUE TO IMPLEMENTATION OF CHANGE l' l Ek = MAN-REM CONSEQUENCES GIVEN K" l PLANT DAMAGE STATE 1 , t a IV-17 t i
I
'O O O l
I
- l i
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF RESOLVING j LONG TERM DECAY HEAT REMOVAL ISSUE AT l MILLSTONE UNIT 1 i I A CMF = 64.0% A RISK = 38,000 MAN-REM ' l i , l . t <. IV-18 i I 1 . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
~ ~~ ~
! ~O O '~O~~ { POTENTIAL IMPACT OF CONTROL ROOM i HABITABILITY MODIFICATIONS il ISSUES ASSESSED: I e CllLORINE GAS RELEASE j l e MILLSTONE 2 CORE MELT / RADIATION RELEASE i ! e I-IVAC IMPACT ON OPERATOR ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS i l 1 ' 1 IV-19 i
i INSIGHTS FROM PSS , ; i . . l .
+ !
- Cl-ILORINE GAS RELEASE' .
i, A CMF = 9.2 X 10 -7/ YR.
- i A RISK = 34.5 MAN-REMS I
g f f e MILLSTONE 2 CORE MELT
~ -
A CMF = 2.5 X 10 -7/ YR. < > ', s i
- A RISK = 10.0 MAN-REMS i ,
!
- ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS (ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT)
! A RISK = 45 MAN-REMS '
- x s L L a
\
i IV-20 4
-- ._ ._. . _ _ _ _ . __. =. .- - _ - _ . - . -
~
O O - 0 100,000 - NRC INITIATED NUSCO INITIATED UPGRADE LPCI HEAT EXCHANGERS
-4 FOR LONG TERM COOLING UPGRADE FWCalHVAC FOR LNP
- REMOVE LIO. CHLORINE - INSTALL SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FOR 10,000 -
N CHLORINATION l -: IMPROVE LPCI LUBE OIL COOLER TESTING ! AC BACKFEED FROM MP 2 :- FOR APPENDIX R HARDENED RX MAKEUP PUMP FOR - 1000 - TWWIADO MISSILES _g REPLACE EXTRACTION STEAM PIPING MODIFY BWR LEVEL INSTR. ;- -: REDUCE MSIV CLOSURE TEST FREQUENCY I 86 OPM SLCS FOR ATWS :-_
~\ RETUBE MAIN CONDENSER ! M*EE CORE SPRAY BLOCK MOV EEQ GAS TURBINE P.M. PROGRAM :-
100 - LPCI MOV EEQ FOR BLEED AND FEED COOLING W-GAS TURBINE START LOGIC MODIFICATIONS :-
~
RECIRC PUMP MOV EEQ
~
ADO MORE SEISMIC PlPE HANGERS j CONTROL ROOM DESIGN REVIEW CONTROL ROOM HABITABILITY { l 10 - RWCU ISOLATION MOV EEQ 'l REDUNDANT RWCU PRESSURE INTERLOCK ;- 1
' ' J 0 -
4
)
s e o o l
;! llll l ;,i. !l l '
~
T O N E a. J M Y L S O 1 S V m E S a m. S A M YA) T RP O E GA F A OS I - S PR( e. A. m D M E n i T A-R
. G i E T
+ N l O = - ~
;; i il \
ISAP PROJECT PRIORIZATION . e MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF ISAP PROGRAM.
- NEED TO PRIORITIZE ALL PROJECTS ON COMMON SCALE ESSENTIAL FOR EFFECTIVE RESOURCE 58ANAGEMENT MOST BENEFIT ACHIEVED FOR RESOURCES EXPENDED e METHODOLOGY MUST RECOGNIZE IMPORTANCE OF UTILITY
', INITIATED IMPROVEMENTS. e ATTRIBUTES SELECTED MUST ENCOMPASS ALL RELEVANT FACTORS FOR DECISION-MAKING AND PRIORITIZATION. !' e NUCLEAR SAFETY IS FIRST BUT NOT ONLY CONSIDERATION.
<g ' V-2
O - O . O ISAP ATTRIBUTES SELECTED e PUBLIC SAFETY e PERSONNEL SAFETY
- ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE I 1
e PERSONNEL PRODUCTIVITY ' e EXTERNAL IMPACTS i
-, c mL l V-3
O O O ISAP PUBLIC SAFETY ATTRIBUTE , i i e PUBLIC SAFETY ATTRIBUTE COMPOSED OF 3 CHARACTERISTICS
- RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL RELEASE FROM PLANT
- HAZARDOUS (NON-RADIOACTIVE) MATERIAL RELEASE FROM PLANT
- HAZARDS FROM TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS OFFSITE e IMPACT MEASURED UTILIZING PSS RESULTS, WHERE APPLICABLE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT i
i l i 1 L e a V Il 1
O O O J
- ISAP PERSONNEL SAFETY ATTRIBUTE
- PERSONNEL SAFETY ATTRIBUTE COMPOSED OF 2 CHARACTERISTICS j - OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE
- INDUSTRI AL SAFETY e IMPACT TO BE MEASURED BY COMBINATION OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE FACTORS, EG:
! - DOLLAR VALUE PER MAN-REM
- COST PER LOST WORK-DAY l
} 1 L L l; ! y-5 l
o o' o i
' ISAP ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTE 4
e ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE ATTRIBUTE COMPOSED OF i 4 CHARACTERISTICS
- EFFECTS ON PLANT AVAILABILITY i
- EFFECTS ON PLANT EFFICIENCY l
- - EFFECTS ON ELECTRICAL OUTPUT (DERATING) j
- EFFECTS ON CORE POWER RATING i
o IMPACT TO BE MEASURED BY PLANT-SPECIFIC RELIABILITY MODEL AND ENGINEERING JUDGEMENT l i l l t <Ta j v-6 1
~
- - _ _ _ - _ u --. -
~O o' o ISAP PERSONNEL PRODUCTIVITY ATTRIBUTE l
I e PERSONNEL PRODUCTIVITY ATTRIBUTE COMPOSED , OF 3 CHARACTERISTICS: ' - EFFECTS ON PEOPLE i - EQUIPMENT / TOOLS l, - WORK ENVIRONMENT l l e IMPACT TO BE MEASURED BY SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT ! SUPPLEMENTED BY QUANTITATIVE DATA WHERE AVAILABLE j l - .- t t b j V-7
' ~
O o o ISAP EXTERNAL IMPACTC ATTRIBUTE i l .
- EXTERNAL IMPACTS ATTRIBUTE COMPOSED OF i 4 CHARACTERISTICS ,
i
- NRC ACTIONS i
ACTIONS OF STATE / LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES i l
- ACTIONS OF OTHER FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES
- ACTIONS OF INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS (E.G.-INPO) l
! e IMPACT TO BE MEASURED BY SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT l j
< 1 l V-8 i -
C) O' O ISAP , PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY e ATTRIBUTE IMPACT SCORES COMBINED TO DETERMINE TOTAL VALUE OF PROPOSED PROJECT e RANKING OF PROJECTS BASED ON TOTAL VALUE DIVIDED BY REMAINING COST e PRIORITIZED RESULTS INPUT TO INTEGRATED SCHEDULE l 1
, a t <L .l
, . v-9
.m____ . _ _ - _
9 o . o 1 EVENT FREQ. PROCEDURES MILLSTONE UNIT RELIABILITY ^ "' M DEL
'-~
SUCCESS HARDWARE CRITERIA DESIGN JL NRC DESIGN PUBLIC SAFETY
~--------+ CHANGES + IMPACT MODEL NU ISAP PROCESS FURTHER ANALYSIS UPDATE b'
L L
,J 4
v 9 O. I 4 ISAP CONSIDERATION OF FINANCIAL RISK l e AVERTED ON-SITE COSTS RECOGNIZED AS l lMPORTANT i l
- CURRENT MODELS DO NOT EXPLICITLY CONSIDER FINANCIAL RISK i
e TREATMENT OF FINANCIAL RISK UNDER EVALUATION 4 1 j V-10 ( . i w_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __}}