ML20198C577
| ML20198C577 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8605220574 | |
| Download: ML20198C577 (102) | |
Text
ggggg yes
.o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COPE.ISSION MEETING Discussion /Possible Vote on Full Power Operating License for Catawba-2 (Public Meeting)
Docket No.
%,7 t
~_
Location: Washington, D. C.
Date: Wednesday, May 14, 1986 Pages:
1 - 86 8605220574 860514 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR s
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters 1625 I St.,
N.W.
k,yt Suite 921 g
Washington, D.C.
20006
r r
(
O 1
D l SCLA l MER 2
S 4
5 g
6 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on e
5/14/86 In the Commissice's office at 1717 H Street, 9
N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 Informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.10S, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorire.
22 23 24 25
y i
n 1
'~
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 5
Discussion /Possible Vote on Full 6
Power Operating License for Catawba-2 7
8 9
Public Meeting 10 11 1717 H Street, N.W.
12 Room 1130
/
13 Washington, D.C.
\\
~
14 Wednesday, May 14, 1986 15 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 16 p.m.,
in public session, the Honorable Nunzio J.
Palladino, 17 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
-19 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman of the Commission 20 Frederick M. Bernthal, Member of the Commission 21 Thomas M. Roberts, Member of the Commission.
22 Lando W. Zech, Jr., Member of the Commission 23 24 25
a T
9 2
'l STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
2 H. Tucker 3
D.
Cameron 4
J. Bauer 5
R. Walker 6
T. Novak 7
K. Jabbour 8
H. Denton 9
S.
Chilk, SECY 10 J. Hoyle, SECY 11 12 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
13 C.
Berlinger 14 P. Van Doorn 15 C. Tinkler 16 J. Hampton 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
7 s
3 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Good afternoon, ladies and 3
gentlemen.
4 Commissioner Asselstine is on travel status.
5 Commissioner Roberts and Commissioner Bernthal have been 6
detained but they expect to be here in a few minutes. They 7
both suggested that we go ahead and get started with the
-8 meeting.
9 The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss and 10 decide on whether or not a full power license shall be granted 11 for the Catawba Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No.
2.
On February 12 24, 1986, the NRC issued a license for the Catawba Unit No. 2
(
13 authorizing fuel load, procriticality testing and low power 14 operation for power levels up to five percent of full power.
15 I understand that in addition, members of the 16 NRC Staff and representatives of Duke Power Company are 17 available to answer any questions we might have. At the 18 completion of the Staff presentation and discussion, five 19 minutes will be allowed for Duke Power Company to make any 20 comments, and at that time I will invite them to join us at 21 the table.
22 At the conclusion of discussions, I intend to poll 23 the other commissioners on whether we should authorize the 24 Staff to issue the Catawba Unit No. 2 full power license.
25 Do you have any other comments you would like to
W r
o 4
1 cdd?
2 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 CHAIhMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
Then I will turn 4
the meeting over to Mr. Denton.
5 MR. DENTON:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6 We have about a 25-minute presentation today.
K.
7 Jabbour, the project manager, can summarize our review in 8
about 15 minutes, and Roger Walker from Region II can 9
summarize the Region's input in about ten minutes, and then 10 Tom Novak did want to mention the status of Amendment No. 6, 11 which is the last SER to be issued, and he has a few things.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Amendment, or supplement?
13 MR. DENTON:
Supplement No. 6 to our review.
He 14 will say a few words about that activity.
15 Without stealing K's thunder, why don't you walk 16 through it.
K. has been associated with this project since 17 1981.
18 MR. JABBOUR:
Thank you, Mr. Denton.
19 May I have the first slide, please.
20 (Slide) 21 We are here today to discuss with you a brief 22 background relative to the plant and the Licensee, an overview 23 of operations at the Catawba Unit 1, some of the special 24 design features of the facility as well as some of the 25 major FSAR issues reviewed during the Catawba licensing and
W r
a 5
1 in p;cticn program, including the SALP.
2 May I have the next slide, please.
3
[ Slide) 4 As you can observe, Duke Power Company is not an 5
owner of Catawba Unit 2 but acts as the' operator and the agent 6
for the owners.
The Catawba Unit 2 design is a Westinghouse 7
PWR.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me ask a question on that.
9 Is the agreement whereby Duke operates this plant, is that a I
10 matter of record?
Is it well documented?
11 MR. JABBOUR:
Yes, sir, and Duke could answer also 12 that question when they come up.
[
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Fine.
Thank you.
I am sorry
(
14 to interrupt.
15 MR. JABBOUR:
The Catawba Unit 2 design is a 16 Westinghouse PWR and is very similar in its design 17 characteristics with Units 1 and 2 of the McGuire facility 18 which have been previously licensed, and except for minor 19 hardware differences, it is nearly identical to the Catawba 20 Unit 1 facility, which received its full power operating 21 license in January 1985.
22 The Unit 2 has an ice condenser containment similar 23 to the McGuire units and Catawba Unit 1.
The Catawba site is 24 located in York County in north central South Carolina.
It 25 borders Lake Wiley and is about six miles north of Rock Hill,
AJ e
6 1
cnd olcven milos couth-ccuthwact of the nearest boundary of 2
Charlotte, which is the largest city in the area, with a 3
population exceeding 314,000 in accordance with the 1980 4
census.
5 The area in the vicinity of the site is 6
predominantly rural.
In 1980 the population within five 7
miles of the site was over 11,000, and within ten miles, was 8
over 72,000.
The Catawba site had a full-scale emergency 9
exercise in February of 1984, a partial-scale exercise in 10 February 1985, and another partial-scale exercise in February 11 of '86, with full participation by York County and partial 12 participation by the State of South Carolina.
~
1
(
13 An emergency response facility appraisal was 14 conducted in September of
'85. FEMA provided its final finding 15 and determination in accordance with 44 CFR 350, and the Staff 16 has concluded that the state of onsite and offsite emergency 17 preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate 18 protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a 19 radiological emergency.
20 Catawba's hearings started in October of 1983 and 21 were concluded in October of 1984.
The major issues.were 22 quality assurance and associated concerns raised by the 23 welding inspectors, the storage of oconee and Mcguire fuel at 24 Catevba, and emergency preparedness.
25 A separate hearing board was assigned to hear the
%T e
7 1
cmsrg0ncy planning iccues.
A partial initial decision was 2
issued in June of 1984 on all safety and environmental issues, 3
excluding welding concerns and emergency planning issues.
4 Another PID was issued in September of 1984 on 5
emergency preparedness, and a third one in November of 19us 1
6 welding concerns.
Affirmation by the Appeal Board was issued 7
in July of 1985 for all safety issues except for the storage 8
of Oconee and McGuire spent fuel at Catawba.
Another 9
affirmation was issued in November 1985 for such storage.
10 May I have the next slide, please.
11
[ Slide) 12 This slide presents some selective data on Unit 1 13 operation.
The startup testing and power ascension program 14 was completed in three months, and commercial operation 15 commenced on June 29 of 1985.
For the nine-month period since 16 commercial operation, Unit 1 had five trips.
Typical problems 17 experienced included reactor coolant system leaks and main 18 condenser tube leaks.
19 For Catawba Unit 2, initial criticality --
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
May I ask a question about 21 Catawba Unit 1?
There seems to be conflicting information, 22 either that or I'm not understanding it.
On Slide 3 there 23 is an indication there were five trips, you said, in nine 24 months, I would guess ten months, but on page 1 of the 25 operating experience summary, it is indicated there were 12
8 1
tripa et Unit 1 over a twalve-month period.
Does that mean 2
there were seven in two months, or could you explain the 3
difference between these numbers?
4 MR. JABBOUR:
Chairman Palladino, the number in the 5
Catawba Unit 1 operating experience reports include all the i
6 trips, including those that occurred during the startup 7
testing program, and there were nine trips during that 5
8 period.
The three trips occurred in the commercial operations l
9 since Catawba Unit 1 went commercial on June 29, and two 1
10 recent trips have occurred in the month of April, for a total j
11 of five.
4 12 So essentially, the difference was nine trips which
('
13 occurred during the startup test program prior to commercial l
14 operation.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I see.
Basically I was 4
16 counting two different periods, then, and trying to understand 17 the numbers.
Thank you.
18 MR. JABBOUR:
For Catawba Unit 2, initial l
19 criticality was achieved on May 8. Low p'ower physics testing 20 was completed on May 12 of 1986.
The Staff compared the 21 operating experience at Catawba Unit 2 ith that for.McGuire 22 Units 1 and 2.
The selected data shows that Catawba Unit 1 23 operations compare favorably with either unit of the McGuire 24 facility.
25 It is the Staff judgment that Catawba. Unit 1 is j
.-_-_.....___.__...,.___..._._,_,_,___,..-,_....________..,__...______,,,,________________,____.,,.,[,__..___._
9 1
rated in ths rango of avarcg3 to abova cverage in comparison 2
to other recently licensed PWRs.
3 May I have the next slide, please.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Before you leave that slide, 5
one item of curiosity.
On Unit 1, from August 8 to December 6
1, you had a capacity factor of 52 percent and availability 7
factor of 69 percent.
Is there anything unusual that led to 8
the 52 percent number?
9 MR. JABBOUR:
Unit 1 of McGuire operated partially 10 at reduced capacity during the period, and this accounted for 11 the differences between 69 percent and 52 parcent.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Was that because they didn't 13
{
need the power or was that because they had an outage or they 14 had difficulty?
15 MR. NOVAK:
They had difficulties. They had turbine 16 control problems.
They were flow limited problems. So it was 17 more hardware oriented as opposed to load requirements.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So basically it was debugging 19 of hardware problem.
20 MR. NOVAK:
Yes, sir.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
22 (Slide) 23 MR. JABBOUR:
Some of the special design features at 24 Catawba include the ice condenser containment design, the 25 hydrogen ignition system, the upper head injection system and n
....,,-,..-~----n,-
,-....n.
10 1
tho ctandby chutdown facility.
With regard to the 2
containme'nt, the ice b ds were designed to efficiently 3
condense the steam from the design basis large break loss of 4
coolant accident and to limit the pressure in the containment.
5 (Commissioner Bernthal arrived at 2:15 p.m.]
6 Each of the Catawba units is equipped with a 7
distributive hydrogen ignition system very similar to that 8
installed in the McGuire units.
The Staff's review of the 9
system was based on its previous review of the McGuire system, 10 which the Staff found acceptable.
11 Two confirmatory items remain.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
On the hydrogen control system,
~
e 13 what do we have here, recombiners?
N 14 MR. JABBOUR:
We do'have the recombiners at Catawba, 15 but we also have the distributive ignition system, which 16 contains 70 igniters at Catawba Unit 2 and 70 igniters at 17 Catawba Unit 1.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Does that mean they have more 19 than we have asked for?
20 MR. JABBOUR:
It appears that way, yes, sir.
It l
21 appears that they have more than what we have asked for.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And they are installed and they l
23 are functional?
24 MR. JABBOUR:
They are installed and operational.
25 CHA!RMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
I l
11
~
1 MR. JABBOUR:
The first item is operability.
We 2
were talking about the two confirmatory items that remain.
3 The first item is operability of air return fans and ice 4
condenser doors, and the second item is survivability of 5
essential equipment.
To resolve these items, the Licensee has 6
submitted an extensive program that was reviewed by the Staff 7
and found to be acceptable.
8 The proposed schedule associated with completion of 9
all the activities described in the program is December of 10 1987.
I 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Before you change the slide, 12 refresh my memory on this upper head injection system.
Is 13 that going to be in or is it going to be out?
14 MR. NOVAK:
I think you get your answer both ways, 15 sir.
It is installed and it will be operable on the Catawba 16 units.
Yesterday, though, we did issue a license amendment on 17 the McGuire statement permitting the isolation of the upper 18 head injection. This request was made by Duke a while back.
19 We have discussed it with the ACRS.
The ACRS agrees with it.
20 They would ask that Duke maintain the capability of reversing 21 it, that is, to bring it back on if it can be demonstrated to 22 be of real benefit to safety.
23 Duke is prepared perhaps to comment on what work 24 they plan to do.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Why is it being removed?
r,
12 1
MR. NOVAK:
Thoy havo had operational problems.
It 2
does extend the periods during refueling. There are a lot of 3
hardware changes. On top of the head you have four large pipes 4
and they are connected.
You have to disassemble it.
They 5
have had a number of operational difficulties, which they 6
believe is not balanced by the safety one gets from it.
7 The Staff has reviewed the system, the plant 8
performance without the operability of the upper head 9
injection.
It meets all the requirements. There is still a 10 net benefit from having upper head injection even if it is not 11 operable.
There is a lot of inside hardware in the upper head 12 region that we have shown by analysis does give you some 13 improved performance.
So you are not losing everything, but
[
14 there are certainly some differences between it being operable 15 and not operable.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Two questions.
What situation 17 was this intended to handle that is not being handled by 18 removing it?
19 MR. NOVAK:
Perhaps I can give you a little 20 background. The need for upper head injection really started 21 out in the early 1970s.
When we reviewed the emergency core 22 cooling criteria, probably one of the most difficult technical 23 areas to address was the reflood behavior in the pressurized 24 water reactor.
It became most severe for those designs where 25 you had basically low back pressure in the containment.
13 1
In othcr words, an ice condenser roughly runs at 2
near atmospheric pressure, and the tests that were performed 3
-- and they were referred to as FLECHT tests, full length 4
emergency core heat transfer tests, sponsored by the AEC at 5
that time.
This demonstrated minimum thermal performance for 6
an ice condenser design.
What would happen is you would get 7
water penetrating the lower portion of the core, flashing and 8
being carried over to the steam generator and causing a very 9
slow reflood behavior.
10 Westinghouse's approach was to recognize that for 11 the breaks of interest, which are cold leg breaks, basically 12 the flow is down through the core, so they put in the upper
(
13 head injection, which during the blowdown, once the pressure 14 got to below 1200 pounds, approximately 1800 cubic heat of 15 cold water would come in through the core, and in effect the 16 idea was to quench the fuel rods.
Then if you quenched them, 17 your normal accumulator water could penetrate higher into the 18 core and you could get enhanced heat transfer.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And we wouldn't have that 20 feature if we didn't have the upper head injection.
21 MR. NOVAK:
That is correct.
Now, what has. happened 22 over the successive years is, with additional testing and 23 improvements in modeling, now they have been able to better identify the behavior of reflood and it just isn't proving out 24 25 to be that necessary.
14 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
With regard to isolating it 2
now, don't you have just as much trouble with all the hardware 3
if all you are going to do is, I presume, valve it off?
4 MR. NOVAK:
Their long term is to remove it, but 5
they didn't want to cut the pipes before they had the 6
approval, so at this stage they are isolating it. They have 7
intentions of removing it.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But now you said you approved 9
isolation of this for McGuire.
Have you approved it for 10 Catawba?
11 MR. NOVAK:
And removal for McGuire.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And what about Catawba?
13 MR. NOVAK:
Catawba will operate with it.
They have
{
14 not asked for it yet.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I see.
And I presume you have 16 gained some experience with the McGuire.
17 MR. NOVAK:
I presume they will do it.
I don't 18 think they expect any better operating performance with the 19 system. That is, they expect the same operating problems.
20 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Do I understand it is not needed 21 to meet the design basis criteria?
Is that correct?.
22 MR. NOVAK:
That is correct.
They have demonstrated 23 it without it.
24 MR. DENTON:
I think it was a year or two ago that l
25 it came close to causing a problem, and I have forgotten the i
1
15 1
datails of it, but tho malfunction hnd the potential to 2
blanket the core with nitrogen if it operated improperly.
So 3
the system was not of universal good, and I think at that time 4
we recognized that it was causing operational problems. It did 5
have the potential to keep core cooling from working if you 6
got nitrogen in the core and blankeded the core, so we agreed 7
at that time to do a review.
8 So we went through the review, satisfied ourselves 9
the plant meets the regulations without it, wrote an SER, went 10 to the ACRS, they concurred in that opinion, and that is the 11 basis that we have acted so far.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
One final question.
Since
[
13 Westinghouse had proposed it, do they concur in its removal or 14 isolation?
15 MR. NOVAK:
I would say so, yes.
They have done all 16 the work in support of the removal.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
18 MR. JABBOUR:
The last item on this slide is the 19 standby shutdown facility for Catawba station. This facility 20 is also provided at the McGuire station.
It was designed to 21 provide an independent means to achieve hot standby conditions 22 and to ensure its independence of offsite and onsite power 23 supplies.
It also provides protection for fire and sabotage 24 events.
25 May I have the next slide, please.
16 o
1
[ Slide]
2 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I understand that shutdown 3
facility was put in there at their own initiative. Is that 4
right, or did we inspire that?
How did that come about?
Is 5
that needed or is it something extra, or what?
6 MR. JABBOUR:
It was done at Duke's initiative 7
because or problems they have encountered at Oconee with 8
flooding of the turbine building and also for security and 9
fire protection reasons.
They have implemented this facility 10 at the McGuire station and also at the Catawba station.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
This doesn't have anything to 12 do with Appendix R?
[
13 MR. JABBOUR:
It has something to do with Appendix R 14 fire protection.
15 MR. NOVAK:
I would say it is a good design to meet 16 certain problems, be it fire protection or sabotage.
Through 17 this system they can establish easier complete independence, 18 ar.d I think that is what motivated them.
Sone of the difficulties you have in trying to show separation, you do not 19 20 have when you enter into this kind of a design.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So they do meet the 22 requirements associated with Appendix R?
23 MR. NOVAK:
That is correct.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And all other fire protection 25 requirements as well?
17 1
MR. JABBOUR:
Yes, sir.
2 Among the major FSAR issues reviewed is the 3
permanent dewatering system for the Catawba site which lowers 4
the water table to a depth of approximately 50 feet below the 5
present ground surface, to about the same elevation as the 6
base of the foundation mat.
This is about 25 feet below the 7
normal level of Lake Wiley.
8 The objective of lowering the water table was to 9
avoid having to combine the hydrostatic loads with other 10 design basis accident loads.
11 With regard to the containment and the hydrogen 12 control system, as noted earlier, the ice condenser i
13 containment has a small volume, which required that the
(
14 hydrogen control measures be addressed.
The complexity 15 involved was with regard to modeling of hydrogen and steam 16 releases, combustion behavior, temperature profile and 17 equipment survivability.
18 With regard to the steam generators, you recall the 19 difficulty in Westinghouse Model D steam generators, which 20 included a preheater section.
The flow-induced vibration 21 caused accelerated wear in the tubes and thus provided leaks.
22 Westinghouse implemented appropriate modification at 23 the Catawba site prior to fuel' load for each unit, and the 24 Staff finds the modification acceptable.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me ask a question about the
,e-
18 1
monitoring of tha otsam gsnarators. If I recall correctly, the 2
ACRS had recommended monitoring the D-5 steam generators, and 3
I don't know if a commitment was made to do so, but could you 4
discuss a little bit what is intended and what is planned and 5
the Staff view on that?
6 MR. NOVAK:
Yes.
First of all, the letter did say 7
to model it and to make any required modifications. There were 8
some modifications made.
Basically, one of the things they did was expand the tubes in the area where the tube would pass 9
10 through the baffle. Tnis would give you a much tighter fit, 11 and they did that as well.
12 They also have an option where they don't have to
/
13
\\
have all the feedwater come in the feedwater nozzle. They can 14 divert some of it to the auxiliary feedwater.
That would just 15 reduce the inlet velocity in the normal feedwater 16 section. They have done that.
So those were two things they 17 did as part of modifications.
18 Now, in terms of monitoring, you are correct. This i
19 is a model D-5.
Now, if you go through the progression, D-4 20 and D-5 look alike except for the material differences, so 21 hydraulically, the performance of a D-4 and a D-5 should be 22 the same.
Now, Westinghouse has been monitoring the Krsko 23 reactor in Yugoslavia.
It is the lead D-4 steam generator 24 design, and they have seen acceptable results.
25 So we are satisfied to date that the monitoring and
19 1
tha parformanca of the D-4, D-5 steam generator is 2
acceptable.
3 In terms of operation in the United States, the only 4
unit of similar design is the Byron station, and it is 5
scheduled to refuel early next year and they will go through 6
the normal eddy current testing.
7 Our approach was to have a more accelerated 8
inspection for the lead plant, and if everything is right, 9
then use the standard inspections of steam generator tubes for 10 the successive plants, and that is what we will be doing.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But you are monitoring the D-4, 12 not a D-5.
13 MR. NOVAK:
That is correct.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
There could be differences 15 because of the materials?
16 MR. NOVAK:
I would expect that it only would i
17 improve.
The D-5 material should probably be superior to what 18 was placed in the D-4.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I thought when we licensed Unit i
l 20 1, Westinghouse had made a commitment to monitor D-5 steam 21 generator.
22 MR. NOVAK:
I did talk to them about that, and I
23 currently there are no D-5s operating.
This will be the lead l
24 plant.
But they do feel very confident that the hydraulic i
25 performance will be no different than what they see in the D-4
20 1
cy= tam.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What is involved in the 3
monitoring, and if this is the lead, why wouldn't this be a
-4 good place to do some monitoring on D-5?
5 MR. NOVAK:
There are some preparations. For 6
example, the lead plant was intended to be Comanche Peak, and 7
they had installed some accelerometers on the steam generator 8
tubes to see if they picked up any vibration.
Monitoring also 9
then would involve a shutdown earlier than, say, between fuel 10 cycles to go in and do eddy current testing to see if there 11 are any wear patterns that can be discerned from those kinds 12 of measurements. That is what we consider to be monitoring.
13 j
The testing has been done. The lab testing has been 14 done to satisfy Westinghouse and ourselves that the design 15 should be adequate, but this monitoring is confirmatory.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I take your word for it that 17 the geometry is the same a3 D-4.
I just am a little uneasy in 18 not monitoring any of the D-5s, but let me think about it a 19 little bit.
20 MR. NOVAK:
Okay.
21 MR. JABBOUR:
With regard to the mass and energy 22 release from partially uncovered tube bundle, Westinghouse has 23 identified this concern which results in superheated steam.
24 This required a new main steam line break analysis, which 25 accounts for the superheat to be performed in order to
21 1
datermina tha cdsquacy of the temperature profile inside 2
containment and in other areas.
3 Under engineered design features, the Catawba 4
facility includes an upper head injection, which was discussed 5
earlier.
The computer codes utilized for the thermal 6
hydraulics analysis have been improved, and the Staff reviews 7
these improvements on a continuing basis.
8 Because the Licensee utilized the pressurizer and 9
steam generator power operated relief valves in the 10 depressurization and heat removal capabilities at Catawba, he 11 upgraded those valves for Catawba Unit 2 prior to fuel 12 loading.
j 13
..HAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What do you mean by upgraded?
(
14 What did they do?
15 MR. JABBOUR:
He upgraded them to safety grade by 16 providing power supply separation and other modifications as 17 necessary to meet the qualification.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
19 MR. JABBOUR:
The Licensee intends to upgrade the 20 same valves for Catawba Unit 1 during the forthcoming 21 refueling outage.
22 With regard to the reliability of the onsite power 23 supplies, the Catawba Unit 2 is served by two TDI diesels, 24 which were reviewed and approved for operation at Catawba Unit 25 2.
i
22 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you need both of them to 2
handle the emergency power?
You say there are two?
3 MR. JABBOUR:
There are two diesels.
One of them 4
would be sufficient to handle the emergency power, and the 5
other one provides the single failure requirement.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are these TDI diesels ones that 7
are similar to those that have had problems, and are you going 8
to discuss that?
9 MR. NOVAK:
Grand Gulf was the lead plant of that 10 vintage. This is what we referred to as a V-16 diesel.
The 11 first ones that went into operation were Grand Gulf.
A lot of 12 the problems were identified there.
Duke did an extensive 13 testing program prior to licensing of Unit 1, and we feel many 14 of the problems have been resolved.
What we are looking at 15 now is just a good maintenance-program, and that is what we 16 have conditioned the license to.
17 There is an owners group now that has kind of 18 finished up their activities with a recommendation as to a 19 maintenance program.
Dr. Berlinger is in the audience.
20 Perhaps he could give us a very --
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, do we have experience 22 with TDI diesels, and has it been good experience or bad 23 experience or not enough to nake any comment?
24 MR. DENTON:
Why don't we ask Carl Berlinger, who 25 has followed this activity since its initiation, to summarize
23 1
tho situation for us.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
3 MR. BERLINGER:
I think the question that you just 4
asked was do we have operating experience with the diesels.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And was it good or bad or 6
indifferent?
7 MR. BERLINGER:
Before the Task Force review was 8
conducted, the operating experience was bad, and as a result 9
of the review that we have completed --
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The operating experience with 11 this particular design was bad?
12 MR. BERLINGER:
With the TDI diesels in general. As 13
[
a result of our review, the V-16 diesels were found adequate 14 for full power rating.
The major item which we felt was of 15 most significance was the implementation of an enhanced 16 maintenance and surveillance program which the Licensee has 17 committed to, and it has been developed in conjunction with 4
18 the TDI Owners Group and their technical staff and the NRC f
19 Staff.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So you think the experience 21 coupled with your evaluation and the maintenance test program 22 will satisfy your requirements with regard to the diesels?
23 MR. BERLINGER:
Yes, I do.
The V-16 engines along 24 with the other TDI engines underwent a number of part 25 changeouts: for instance, cylinder heads, pistons, piston
24 1
ekirts, bearing inspections and replacements of any that had 2
voids in them or potential fracture sites.
All of the phase 3
one components that required changeout have been changed out.
4 All of the phase one components and any problems associated 5
with them were taken care of through their DRQR teardown inspection, as well as the actual 500 to 700 hours0.0081 days <br />0.194 hours <br />0.00116 weeks <br />2.6635e-4 months <br /> of running 6
7 time that were put in the Unit 1 diesels.
8 So the flat out answer to your question is the 9
diesels are qualified for service.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I only ask these questions 11 because it seems like we have had a lot of trouble with TDI 12 diesels, and I would like to be sure that we have overcome
(
13 them.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
What about the startup 15 testing on these?
Did you already ask about that, Joe?
I was 16 sort of listening with one ear here.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
No, I was going to ask it next, 18 but you go ahead.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I understand that there has 20 been a fairly high failure rate there.
What is the story?
21 MR. NOVAK:
Roger can probably speak best to it.
22 MR. WALKER:
At the moment, Unit 2 is on a three-day i
23 surveillance for their two diesels.
They have had six 24 legitimate failures since we started counting.
Two of them 25 were before the license was issued, and as I understand, they 4
25 1
are on the 2-B diesel.
Since the license was issued, there 2
have been four legitimate failures and they have been on the 3
2-A diesel.
If you join those together, that puts you on a 4
testing frequency per the tech specs of one every 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />, so 5
they are tested every three days.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That has its owns problems, 7
though.
Why have they failed?
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What is the nature of the 9
failures?
10 MR. WALKER:
The nature of the failures -- Kim 11 VanDoorn, the senior resident inspector, has got a list of 12 them, and I will have him come up and tell you specifically
-(
13
.what they are.
The nature of the failures for the most part 14 have been auxiliary systems type of failures, but I think Kim 15 can tell you what the failures were specifically.
16 MR. VAN DOORN:
Rather than the engine itself, it 17 has been support systems: a slow start, a malfunction of an 18 overspeed trip level.
Several of the 2-A failures which 19 occurred in April are all intertwined with a similar problem, 20 basically failures to start, but all related back to a booster 21 cylinder problem in the governor, it appears, and that just 22 didn't finally get fixed properly and they wound up with three 23 failures associated with that.
And then a final sixth failure 24 which occurred on the 9th, and we are not sure yet exactly 25 what occurred there.
The diesel rolled but it did not start
26 1
and come up to speed, so that is still being investigated.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So this is six failures 3
between the two diesels?
4 MR. WALKER:
Yes, sir.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
What do we assume 6
unreliability for these?
7 MR. WALKER:
No, that's on the last 100 starts.
8 That is the way the tech spec counts them.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Six out of 100.
10 MR. WALKER:
Yes. I don't know how many total starts 11 we have on the unit.
I think the Utility may be prepared to 12 address that when they get to talk.
13 MR. VAN DOORN:
The fifth failure occurred on the 14
_23rd start.
I'm not sure how many starts the failure on the 15 9th.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But sort of a scattering of 17 causes.
- u.
i l
18 MR. WALKER:
Well, three of them apparently should L
l 19 have been corrected by the same problem.
20 MR. VAN DOORN:
Three of them appeared to be 21 related, and the other three, I would say, are scattered.
l 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Have you found out what you 23 need to fix it or are we still operating in the dark on l
24 that?
25 MR. WALKER:
On the last failure, we have not gotten
27 1
onough information to know what it is, exactly, was the 2
problem.
It did not start.
And it just occurred recently.
t 3
COMMISSIONE2s BERNTHAL:
What do we assume for a 4
failure rate generally with these diesels?
If I asked people 5
what percentage success we require in diesel starts, what 6
would the answer be?
7 MR. DENTON:
I don't remember, Commissioner, what we 8
used in our station blackout proposed rule, but it was 9
probably.9 or higher.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Only
.9.
11 MR. DENTON:
Or higher.
But the intent of the tech 12 specs is to get the problem fixed and restored, and the TDI
/
13 diesel presented a. lot of challenges and we spent c lot of
\\x 14 Commission resources getting the diesel qualified with respect 15 to the engine block.
I think what is happening here is the 16 supporting equipment around the engine is what is causing the 17 problem, and the tech specs are designed to force correction 18 of those problems or else yc't end up testing quite often.
19 I could get you the answer.
Maybe someone knows the 20 answer of what we normally assume in safety reviews.
i.
21 MR. BERLINGER:
The objective as far as start 22 reliability is for 95 percent reliability per engine.
That is l
l 23 the basis that we assume today in developing tech specs.
The 24 particular tech specs that are in place as part of this i
25 license are not -- they are the tech specs that pertain to the l
l l
t a
e 28 1
Unit 1 diesel or the tech specs that were approved at the time 2
of licensing of the Unit 1 diesel, the Unit 1 plant.
3 The Licensee has proposed to modify the tech specs 4
for both units simultaneously, and I think that has recently 5
been submitted. The new tech specs will be consistent with the 6
tech specs that were developed approximately a year ago and 7
implemented in the North Anna review.
This reduces the number 8
of starts and the frequency with which start tests are 9
conducted, and the speed with which starts are actually 10 conducted as well as the load and the running conditions to 11 which the starts are conducted during these tests.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Are there indications that
(
13 these failures -- which I gather fall within our broad 14 requirements, and I am pleased to hear that, at least -- are 15 there any indications that those failures in part, at least, 16 arose from the rapid startup times that we require?
17 MR. BERLINGER:
You are referring to the failures at 18 Catawba?
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes.
20 MR. BERLINGER:
I don't believe I have really enough 21 information to make that kind of a judgment with regard to 22 Catawba.
23 MR. DENTON:
I think we offered everyone the chance 24 to adopt the new style tech specs, and some utilities adopted 25 it and some didn't.
I should mention that Duke took over the
29 1
last part of the TDI owners Group effort, didn't they, Carl?
2 MR. BERLINGER:
Right.
3 MR. DENTON:
Duke has played a major role and put a 4
lot of resources into trying to verify these, and perhaps you 5
would want to talk to Duke about their views here because they-6 sort of acted as the chief engineer for the TDI Owners Group 7
for a while in this review.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That might be a topic they 9
might plan to discuss when they come up to the table.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let me ask one more question 11 about these starts.
What is behind the regulatory philosophy, 12 if I can use that term for so narrow a case, of having a
(
13 fairly sizable number of failures, if.not excessive, and then 14 saying you are going to test them every three days now. Isn't 15 there a point of diminishing returns there?
You are sort of 16 beating the devil out of these things trying to prove they are 17 reliable, and in the process you may end up making them 18 unreliable.
19 MR. DENTON:
That was an issue that we recognized 20 and offered everyone a chance to adopt a different version.
21 The original idea was that if they didn't fail, you went to 22 longer surveillance intervals, and if they failed, you went to 23 shorter ones, trying to keep a constant reliability built in.
24 It became apparent that some people were testing diesels so 25 often there were concerns that we were wearing the diesels l
l
i 30 1
out.
2 We devised the new scheme, sent it to all licensees, 3
said anyone who wants to redefine their tech specs this way 4
could do so.
Many utilities adopted it, and some didn't.
5 MR. NOVAK:
Duke has proposed it and we are 6
reviewing it, and we will make the change on both units.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
They are basically adopting the 8
alternative?
9 MR. NOVAK:
That's right.
They are asking for the 10 revised testing frequency now.
We plan to handle that as a 11 plant change.
It will be applicable to both units, all four 12 diesels.
13 MR. DENTON:
In effect, it is the utility's option 14 which set they want to operate under.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, you say we are still 16 reviewing it.
17 MR. NOVAK:
Towards the end of March of this year, 18 they filed for a license amendment, and we are going to 19 process that amendment. For Unit 1, it must go through the 20 Sholly process.
Unit 2 could have been changed now, but since 21 Duke prefers to operace under a common set of tech specs, you 22 do run into the requirements of doing both according to the 23 requirements.
24 MR. WALKER:
One last thing you should know. We have 25 been concentrating on Unit 2.
Unit l's record of starts is i
l L
31 1
much better.
Can you give us the Unit 17 2
MR. VAN DOORN:
We have had five failures on Unit 1 j
3 also, but we have got better than 100 starts, as well.
I 4
don't know the exact number.
The fifth failure occurred at 5
the 75th valid test, and there are well over 100 starts at 6
this point. Those were even more scattered than we saw on Unit 7
2.
8 MR. NOVAK:
It does amount to a less of a testing 9
frequency on Unit 1.
10 MR. VAN DOORN:
We are at seven days on Unit 1.
It 11 is still fairly tight.
I assume they will be in a 14-day 12 cycle.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I remember some fantastic 14 reliability figures from Japan.
I hate to quote them because 15 they sound so fantastic in terms of what you are saying now, i
16 but I remember something like one in 7000, one failure to 17 start in some several thousand starts.
Why is it that they 18 get such high reliability and we seem not to be able to?
Do 19 you have any idea?
f 20 MR. DENTON:
I think if we knew, if there were a 21 simple answer, we would try to apply it, Mr. Chairman.
It is 22 true their diesels, I think, do outperform ours, and the 23 industry has several programs trying to upgrade the 24 performance of diesels in this country.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Did anybody look into seeing
32 1
why they have such high reliability on their diesels so far as 2
startup is concerned?
3 MR. DENTON:
We don't have the people here to talk 4
about that, but I think it was related to the development of a 5
detailed maintenance schedule for the diesel.
The very first 6
day the plant was licensed, the requirements for lubrication i
7 and cooling and overhauling and maintenance were all spelled 8
out from day one, and I think the vendor felt responsible for 9
maintaining the reliable diesel over its lifetime. So like 10 many other mechanical components in those plants, they seem to 11 achieve a higher reliability.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Will our improved maintenance
[
13 program improve the startup capabilities of these diesel 14 generators, or don't you have any feel yet?
15 MR. DENTON:
We can spend all day on diesels, but --
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
No, we are going to leave it 17 soon.
18 MR. DENTON:
As you know, we retain Battelle 19 Northwest to assist us in doing a review of diesel 20 reliability.
They retained a number of diesel experts, 21 including Spence Bush, who you remember from ACRS days. I 22 guess we spent a million dollars, Carl -- two million dollars, 23 Carl indicates -- in obtaining the best advice we could from 24 people experienced in diesel design and operation and have 25 used that information to put into the requirements for these
33 1
diesels.
I still can't answer the question why they are not 2
as good here as in Japan, but we put a lot of effort into 3
it.
The Owners Group, I think, must have spent ten times that 4
much.
Is that a fair estimate?
5 MR. BERLINGER:
Yes.
That is probably a low 6
estimate.
7 MR. DENTON:
So I think they have spent at least $20 8
million trying to improve the reliability of these TDI 9
diesels.
So it is not for lack of bringing there the 10 expertise in the country, but whether it succeeds or not, I 11 guess time will tell.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I was not implying we were not 13 making any effort.
I was just curious why in one circumstance 14 they get such a significantly different than we do in this 15 country.
16 MR. DENTON:
I think, once again, it varies.
I 17 think some diesels in the U.S. do seem to operate pretty 18 reliably, and I think it is hard to pin down exactly what it 19 is. Maybe it is the skill of the mechanics who maintain it or 20 their procedures, but it is not a simple issue and it has 21 gotten a lot of attention.
But I would have expected this 22 utility, with all their expertise that they brought to bear on 23 it, to have had one of the better startup periods, and it just 24 hasn't worked out that way.
25 MR. NOVAK:
One final comment. In looking, for
34 1
example, even with the country we have seen differences. For 2
example, in reviewing the Northeast Utility's response to the 3
station blackout concern, they gave us very specific data on 4
the reliability of their diesels, and they are not TDIs, but 5
clearly the reliability from that utility was better than the 6
country average, by far.
So there are differences in the e
7 country, and I think the clue is what is one utility doing day in and day out that seems to be improving its reliability.
8 9
MR. DENTON:
I should let Carl answer that overall 10 question since he has lived with this for the past three or 11 four years.
12 MR. BERLINGER:
The major difference can be directly 13
.related to the maintenance and surveillance programs, and the 14 differences between the Japanese program and the United States t
15 program in general lie in differences in the approach they 16 take to maintenance and surveillance.
Testing in Japan is 17 done on the basis of starting the engine slowly every two 18 weeks.
In the United States, we are on a 30-day or 31-day 19 cycle.
They do a slow start.
Up till now, we have required a 20 fast start.
We have changed our approach there.
21 With regard to major teardown and refurbishment of 22 the engine, in Japan their engines are torn down and 23 completely inspected and refurbished every two years.
In the 24 United States in general at nuclear sites, it depends on the 25 particular manufacturer of the engine but ir can be anywhere
. ~
35 1
from five to ten years between major overhauls.
2 There are basic differences, but I believe they 3
all stem from the maintenance and surveillance programs, and 4
this is why we have spent so much time on the TDI effort to 1
5 develop an enhanced maintenance program.
The utilities have 6
willingly developed it along with the Owners Group and are 7
adopting it.
It is quite extensive.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
I know I have gone 9
beyond the need for this Catawbs Unit 2 plant license, but I 10 think we have to try as much as possible to try to learn from 11 the experience in other countries when it is more favorable 12 than our own.
[
13 Excuse me.
Do you have more?
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
No.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Anybody else?
16
[No response.]
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
18 MR. JABBOUR:
Now I turn the presentation over to 19 Roger Walker, the Acting Deputy Regional Administrator for 20 Region II.
21 MR. WALKER:
Thank you, K.
22 Good afternoon.
I am happy to be here.
I would 23 like to tell you from the Region's perspective how we feel 24 about Catawba.
We have had significant experience with this 25 utility since they have six operating units prior to Catawba
36 1
2, and we have lived with Catawba 2 throughout its 2
construction and testing.
We find management to be responsive 3
to our concerns.
4 I am prepa.ed to present and respond to your 5
questions relative to Region II findings and recommendations 6
on this particular unit.
I have with me Virgil Brownley, who 7
is the Branch Chief in the Division of Projects which has 8
Catawba and all of the Duke facilities under it. I have the 9
two senior residents from the facility, Pete Van Doorn and 10 Pierce Skinner, and I have the resident inspector from the 11 facility, Mark Loesser.
12 During the presentation, feel free to ask me any 13 questions I can answer.
I will pass them to them if I can't.
\\ _.
14 I would like to tell you up front that, contrary to
- g -
15 one of the slides, which I guess was correct, but Unit 1 16 tripped last night.
It was.on a feedwater problem from 100 17 percent power.
Basically, they lost their level input to the 18 steam generator level control and went out on low level of the 19 steam generator during the transient.
20 If you don't have any questions on that particular 21 event -- I just wanted to keep you up date'-- I will.go on to 22 the slide and talk about the inspection program.
23
[ Slide]
24 As you know or can visualize from the slide, our 25 inspection program has been both extensive and multifaceted at
37 1
the facility.
I won't go into the amount of hours, but I will 2
say that the various facets include the construction 3
inspection program.
That program includes monitoring of all 4
construction disciplines, including QA to assure the plant is 5
built in accordance with the application.
6 The program was implemented by engineering 7
specialists from the regional office and supplemented by the 8
resident inspectors.
We have had a construction senior 9
resident inspector on this site since February of 1980.
Duke 10 itself stationed their vice president of construction at the 11 site in May of 1982.
12 Our inspection findings in the construction area
(
13 indicate that the Utility has implemented an effective 14 construction program, which we believe they have built the 15 plant in accordance with our regulations or exceeding our 16 regulations.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Their apparent success in 18 construction, to what extent do you think it has to do with 19 their intense participation?
20 MR. WALKER:
That is a subjective opinion, but I 21 would say that I believe since I have seen several plants 22 constructed in my life, I believe that they have an inherent 23 advantage in that they are their own AE, their own 24 construction manager, and I think the cost of their unit might 25 reflect it.
They are very participative in the management of
38 1
their-construction program, and I think the quality of their 2
performance is shown by it.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That is the impression I had 9
4 but I wanted to get it from you.
5 MR. WALKER:
I am a newcomer to Regien II, but I am 6
impressed, sir.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
8 MR. WALKER:
With respect to the pre-op and 9
operations inspection program, that program began for Unit 1 10 in 1983 and has continued on and is still taking place today 11 at CatIwba.
The$ principal effort is from the regional 12 office.
It is supplemented by the resident inspectors. There 13
(
are two senior resident' inspectors on site, and we have put a 14-resident inspector with them for the remainder of the startup 15 prefgram.
16 The operation &l aspects of the plant,. including 17 pre-o and started testing, ' procedure control, maintenance, 18 periodic testing, surveillance, training, security, rad 19 control, emergency preparedness and QA have been reviewed and 20 we find them in accordance with our regulations.
21 Going on beyond those two programs, of course, we 22 will be entering into our routine operational program now.
We 23 have conducted many special inspections. Some of them are 24 listed out on your slide, and they include a construction assessmentandsoh.eself-initiatedevaluations.
25 They were
~
39 1
primarily don'e with Unit 1 but they are applicable to Unit 2.
2 We have followed up on those findings from those 3
inspections and all issues are closed.
4 There have been several other special inspections 5
that apply to both Units 1 and 2, in particular the ones 6
that are listed up there, the tech specs review.
We did a 7
tech specs review for Catawba, Unit 1, in March of 1984.
It 8
was an in-depth review that compared Catawba's tech specs to 9
the standard tech specs and to a similar facility's tech 10 specs.
11 We verified that installed equipment matched the 12 tech specs, assured the equipment was adequately identified
(
13 and assured that the language of the tech specs was clear.
We 14 believe the reviews were thorough, and as a result, very few 15 changes to those tech specs have been required to date.
16 The Unit 2 plant tech specs, with few exceptions, 17 are identical to Unit 1, and we did conduct an additional 18 review of those tech specs.
We have had six inspections 19 covering those tech specs that walked down the unit and 20 compared it to FSAR commitments, compared it to drawings and 21 tech spec requirements.
We reviewed the proof and review copy 22 of the tech specs and gave our comments to NRR and they 23 incorporated them as necessary, and we are satisfied with the 24 tech specs.
25 Now, since the Unit 2 license was issued, we have i
l l
40 1
had ons toch epsc insu6 that surfaced, and that was the 2
Licensee requested us to use discretionary enforcement on a 3
tech spec.
It was the LCO for auxiliary feedwater system 4
operability.
The reason they asked for it -- it was granted 5
primarily because there was no safety concern associated with 6
it -- was that the implementation of the tech spec would have 7
forced the unit to cold shutdown. If you forced the unit to 8
cold shutdown, you couldn't conduct the testing on the 9
auxiliary feedwater system because you needed the steam. They 10 needed it because they had some problems with the auxiliary 11 feedwater pump during startup testing prior to criticality.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What sort of auxiliary 13 feedwater pump did they have?
14 MR. WALKER:
It is a Terry Turbine with -- I don't 15 know the name of --
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It is turbine driven.
17 MR. WALKER:
It is turbine driven.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do they have any electric 19 backups?
l 20 MR. WALKER:
Two electric and one steam driven.
l l
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So we have that diversity.
22 MR. WALKER:
Yes.
At any rate, we are satisfied I
23 with the tech specs.
24 We have also done special procedures reviews.
We 25 have done them for Unit 1.
In general the Unit 1 and Unit 2 i
41 1
procedures are the same.
We hav'e looked at the difference. We 2
have also relooked at the procedures in a team inspection that 3
we looked at for Unit 1. We are satisfied with their 4
procedures.
And you should know, of course, that we continue 5
to review procedures through the operations program and it is 6
a recurring module for us.
So we are satisfied with the 7
procedures.
8 With respect to training, at Catawba the operators 9
were trained primarily on the McGuire simulator. They do not 10 have a site-specific simulator.
They have conducted 11 ground-breaking training for a training facility at Catawba.
12 The building is due February 14, 1986. It will have a 13 Catawba-specific simulator.
14 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
You mean 19877 15 MR. WALKER:
1987.
You are right. And in 1988 the 16 simulator will be operating.
17 For the licenses, Catawba Unit 1 and 2 plant 18 difference oral exams were administered in September and 19 October of 1985 to 22 operators that had Unit I licenses.
20 That is about 50 percent of their complement.
Twenty-one 21 operators passed the oral exams, and based on that sample, we 22 feel that they have completed a satisfactory training program 23 for Unit 2 differences.
Therefore, 13 RO and 29 SRO licenses 24 were recommended to be licensed on Unit 2 as well as Unit 1.
25 Additionally, they have completed operator
42 1
cxaminations for another nine SRO and 12 RO candidates, and 2
all of those passed but one.
We are satisfied with their 3
operator training program.
4 With respect to the rest of the training program at 5
Duke, if you have been to your facilities you probably know they have been an early industry leader in training facilities 6
7 and they have excellent facilities.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
How do the numbers of the SROs 9
and ROs at this plant compare with other plants, for example?
10 MR. WALKER:
They are relatively consistent.
They 11 are a little heavier staffed on shift with SRos and other 12 personnel other than reactor operations personnel, as you will 13 see when you get to staffing, but the numbers are relatively 14 consistent with of the others.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I somehow remember 39 total for 16 both units, and most units go 25 to 30 per unit.
It seems a 17 little low, but I don't really know if it is low relative to 18 the demand.
19 MR. DENTON:
I think Slide 7 had some total numbers 20 on there.
21 MR. WALKER:
Yes, Slide 7 tells you the total 22 numbers.
It's 39 SROs.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And 24 RCs.
24 MR. WALKER:
And those I don't think are 25 particularly low with respect to the rest of the industry.
I
43 1
think thsy era relatively consistent.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are you going to describe or is 3
somebody going to describe their shift pattern?
4 MR. WALKER:
I will do my best, sir.
During 4
5 staffing I will do my best.
It is unique.
6 I have talked about training.
You brought up 4
7 Appendix R earlier, sir. We have conducted three team 4
8 inspections of Appendix R.
They included looking at cable 9
separation, fire barriers, fire protection and suppression 10 systems, emergency lighting, reactor coolant pump oil 11 collection systems, and the overall operation of the standby 12 shutdown system as related to safe shutdown capability.
We 13 did not have significant findings in the area.
1 14 NUREG-0737, the TMI action items, inspections have 15 been performed and confirm the adequacy of implementation of 16 them.
Region II is satisfied with their implementation of TMI 17 action items at this point.
A couple of them are pending.
l 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are there any items outstanding 19 to be done?
20 MR. WALKER:
We have got a couple of open items on 21 the emergency support facilities and the long-term upgrading 22 of the EOF because of their uniqueness.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And you have a schedule?
24 MR. WALKER:
I don't know the schedule. I don't have 25 it with me, but there is a schedule.
44 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But there is one?
2 MR. WALKER:
To be bets of my knowledge there is.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I don't need it. I just want to 4
satisfy myself that there is a schedule and they are on target 4
5 and you find that a satisfactory situation.
6 MR. WALKER:
We have.
7 The next thing on my slide was emergency 8
preparedness, but Mr. Jabbour has covered that adequately, I 9
think, and I don't think I can contribute much more unless you 10 have some questions in the area.
11 The next item on my slide was readiness review. I 12 just want to say that we in Region II conduct a readiness 13 review on every NTOL.
What we do is poll the staff, we 14 assemble key components of the staff, review the results of 15 the poll, review the results of the open items that are out, 16-and make sure all issues are addressed before the license is 17 recommended.
We did that witn satisfactory results, and we 18 provided our input to NRR with our recommendation for a 19 license.
20 With respect to SALP, the last three SALPs are 21 basically the periods -- the fi st one from 1982 to 1983, next 22 one from 1983 to 1984, and the next one was 1984 to 1985.
The 23 1982-83 SALP was primarily a construction SALP.
There were no 24 added Category III ratings.
They were all I's and II's.
25 The 1983-84 SALP was what we call a transitionary
-e
-m g-o
,--.----,,sp-x
-,,m-
45 1
SALP.
It hnd elcments of a construction SALP and a 2
preoperational testing / operational SALP.
The construction 3
areas were still rated I's and II's.
The operational areas 4
were primarily II's except for two areas, and that was the QA 5
program for operations, which was rated a III, and the 6
operator licensing area, which was rated a III.
7 We have conducted a SALP since then, in 1984 and 8
1985. There were no Category III's.
The two Category III 9
areas had improved to Category II.
4 10 The last item on that slide was allegations.
11 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Operator licensing, you said, I 12 think, is non-rated.
Is that what that means?
13 MR. WALKER:
No, sir. Operator licensing in the
\\
14 previous SALP, the 1983-84 SALP, we put in as a special 15 category and rated it III because we had had some problems 16 with documentation in the area of operator licensing. It is 17 not an assigned area.
Subsequent to that, in the 1984-85 18 SALP, we have incorporated the operator licensing area into 19 the training area, and where you see training in there, which 20 was rated Category II, it represents both operator licensing 21 and the rest of the Training Department activities at the 22 facility.
23
[ Chairman Palladino leaves the meeting at 3:06 p.m.]
24 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I see.
So that N/R you have in
'f 25 there as not rated, it should be a "II,"
really.
4
,.,.m.. _. _
46 1
MR. WALKER:
Yes, sir, it should.
2 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Thank you.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let me ask a question about 4
these SALP ratings.
Duke Power may not be the very best in 5
the country but they are certainly alleged to be close to the 6
very best of the big nuclear power plant operators, and I 7
think, assuming they are not resting on their laurels, and I 8
trusting they are not, they are viewed as having their arms 9
around this matter of operating nuclear power plants pretty 10 well.
11 Are you guys so tough, or why is it that we don't 12 see a string of I's instead of mostly II's here?
What does it 13 take to get a "I" out of you?
14 MR. WALKER:
I have had several utility vice 15 presidents ask me that too, sir.
In reality, we consider that 16 a Category I performer is one that goes well above the norm.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I agree.
Should be.
18 MR. WALKER:
We feel that you have to really show us 19 a commitment beyond the norm before we can give a Category I, 20 and we take a great deal of time to discuss each category and 21 give a specific rating, and what you see is what we feel. We 22 do feel that Duke is a good utility, and I would say that if 23 you were looking at their Oconee facility, you would probably 24 see more of a Category I performance, many more Category 25 I's.
You are dealing with a relatively new license.
47 1
(Chnirman Pallcdino r@ turns to ths matting at 3:08 2
p.m.)
3 MR. DENTON:
I happen to have the Oconee SALPs 4
ending in 12/84, and they were I's in operations, maintenance 5
and surveillancs.
I don't think McGuire has been rated that 6
highly by the Region, and I don't think Catawba 1 has operated 7
as well as some other recently-licensed plants.
If you look 8
at the two SNUPPS units, I think by most measures they have 9
outperformed Catawba 1. So I think even though the Utility as 10 a whole has a lot of capability, you do see some 11 differentiation among the units. I guess commonwealth Edison 12 is one that you can look at and see some difference.
But I 13 think your overall observation about Duke is on track.
14 I might just road our input to the SALP review from 15 a management standpoint.
It says, " Management involvement and 16 attention are concerned with nuclear safety.
Resources are 17 generally ample and effective in all licensing areas.
18 Responses are generally sound, conservative and timely.
19 Reportable events are reported accurately and in a timely 20 manner.
The training and qualification program contributes to l
21 an adequate understanding of work and fair adherence.to l
22 procedures.
l l
23
" Duke Power is responsive to issues affecting plant
{
24 availability, and increased attention to technical i'
25 specification amendments and rel'ated safety assessment of
48 1
op; rating conditions is recommended."
I think that is a 2
pretty favorable input, but I think many of the 3
recently-licensed plants have more trips, have more equipment 4
failures, and I think among the recent ones, SNUPPS seems to 5
stand out more than Catawba 1, for some reason.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I am not suggesting you 7
lower your standards. Maybe I will ask Duke if they know how 8
to get a "I."
If they don't, then we have got a problem.
9 MR. WALKER:
But I do believe you can expect good 10 performance out of this particular facility and that those 11 will come up from there.
I think it shows it from the last 12 one to this one.
13 MR. DENTON:
So that I don't leave the wrong 14 impression, McGuire 2, now, stands out as having had a lot of 15 operational difficulties.
If you just look at the normal ways 16 of measuring performance, as compared to Oconee, McGuire 2 17 seems to trip a number of indicators and is something of an 18 outlier with regard to performance.
I don't see that pattern 19 on McGuire 1.
So there are two identical units and they seem 20 to operate with a different performance record.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But let's see. When you say 22 operations, I assume that -- well, I don't assume.
We know 23 that the SALP goes far beyond how much time the plant is up 24 and how many trips and things like that, the mechanical 25 things.
Are you suggesting that the overall plant operations,
49 1
tha p;ople, the managsment and everything in two plants side 2
by side at the same site are significantly different?
That is 3
a little hard to understand.
4 MR. DENTON:
Well, since I brought the topic up, let 5
me try to explain it.
We are trying to work toward what 6
Commissioner Zech has called performance indicators, or 7
starting to try to look at performance indicators, and there 8
are dozens of indicators you can look at.
Among those we look 9
at are safety equipment out of service above 15 percent 10 power, number of failures in safety-related equipment, and we 11 have tried to look at it not just in counting numbers but what 12 the risk significance of it is.
13
(
I guess in doing that, we do see a distinction 14 between McGuire Unit 1 and 2.
Somehow, McGuire Unit 1 just 15 seems to operate better, with less safety features out of 16 service less of the time. I don't really know the answer to 17 it.
Maybe Roger knows it.
But I think sitting back in l
18 Washington, we can see a difference between 1 and 2 in 19 safety-related performance.
I am not quite sure why it 20 exists, but it is there in the data.
l 21 MR. WALKER:
Looking at the plant, I don't see why 22 it would, but I agree that the data does show it.
23 The last item I had on that slide was allegations, I
24 and I am going to make it short and sweet.
We had been up i
l 25 before you on Unit 1 and discussed the history of allegations l
50 1
Et thic facility.
Sinc 3 that tim 3, wo havo opsnsd six 2
allegation case files and we have done the inspection and 3
closed all of them except the latest issue, which is an issue 4
that is being handled through the Department of Labor and we 5
are handling it through our normal procedures.
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Before you move on to that, 7
could you tell us just very briefly a little bit more about 8
the trip that happened on Unit 1 last night?
9 MR. WALKER:
Certainly, sir.
As I understand the 10 trip, they were operating at 100 percent power.
The level 11 inputs into the feedwater level control system, you can select 12 1 or 2, and you may be able to select 3 or 4, but they were on l
13 number 2.
The input failed, producing an isolation.
(
14 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Why did the input fail?
15 MR. WALKER:
I do not know at this time.
The unit 16 is still down.
I think the Utility may have some information 17 on that.
We have been up here since last night, sir, so I i
18 don't know.
19 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Okay.
Mayte when the Utility 20 comes, they could respond to that as best they can what they 21 have been able to analyze so far.
I think it would be of 22 interest.
j 23 MR. WALKER:
But during the event, the operator 24 moved the input from Unit 2 to Unit 2 to try to recover, was 25 unsuccessful, and due to the feedwater isolation -- was k
51 1
un2ucc003ful in catching it, 10 what it cmounted to -- and the 2
feedwater isolation took him out on low water level.
3 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Perhaps the Utility could 4
address it a little bit more.
5 MR. WALKER:
I don't think we know.
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Okay.
Maybe they don't either, 7
but I'm sure they are looking into it.
8 The only other comment I would like to make at this 9
point is that on your marking system for the SALPs, I think 10 the marking should be tough, and I think that a "I" should be 11 earned with a considerable amount of difficulty.
That doesn't 12 mean it should be so difficult it is impossible, but I think a 13 "I" should really be outstanding. So I would submit that I 14 would prefer to see II's, with I's that are earned rather than 15 a whole bunch of I's.
I think performance indicators are 16 important.
The SALP is important.
It does give us at least a 17 brief assessment of performance.
But I think we want to be as 18 realistic as we can, and therefore I think these marks should 19 be tough, they should be earned, and a "I" should really mean 20 something.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I certainly agree with 22 that.
As I said, I didn't intend that we lower our 23 standards. What I have learned in many years of -- if you will 24 excuse me -- teaching, it is that it doesn't do you any good 25 to give a lower grade if the pupil doesn't know -- if I can
._,,7,.
52 1
uco an inappropriate analogy, perhaps, here -- if the pupil 2
doesn't know how to get an "A."
3 I trust that with B's, they know what needs to be 4
done to get an "A."
That is the important thing, I think.
If 5
they don't, then somehow there is a problem.
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
As long as they work real hard 7
for that "A," that's what I want to see.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's right.
9 MR. DENTON:
We seldom talk about the good 10 performers around the country, but there are people who truly 11 stand out, such as Kewaunee.
I think you are aware of what 12 Region III is doing there.
And Yankee Rowe, for example, and 13 Monticello out that way. So there are examples of people who 4
14 are doing well.
15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Months go by and you don't 16 even hear those plants mentioned.
Years can go by on one of 17 those.
18 MR. WALKER:
I would just like to say I think we 19 believe we are implementing both of your philosophies in 20 SALP. We try.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
It sounds like you are.
22 MR. WALKER:
Moving on to the next slide.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But I would observe the ratings 24 are relatively good here, at least the recent ones.
25 MR. WALKER:
Yes, sir.
We happen to believe this
53 1
utility knowa how to op3 rate their nuclear power plants very 2
well.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
4 MR. WALKER:
Shift staffing.
The Vu-graph you have 5
in front of you shows two things: the tech spec requirement 6
for the operations people and the actual complement.
The 7
operations people at this facility are assigned to a 8
five-shift rotation, and I think there was a question on that.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes. Could you explain how they 10 rotate?
11 MR. WALKER:
I will do my best, sir.
I have a 12 chart.
It is my understanding that there are five 12-hour 13 shifts, that those five-hour shifts consist of a day and an 14 evening shift.
15 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Twelve-hour shifts, you mean.
16 MR. WALKER:
Yes, sir.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
WHen you say shift, do you mean 18 a team?
19 MR. WALKER:
Yes.
They are a total team, and_I 20 would like to go into this a little more in the total staffing 21 because there is more to it than just the operators.
There 22 is, then, an off-duty shift, a training shift, and a relief 23 shift.
I am a little hazy on the relief shift, but I think 24 that is correct, by and large.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
A training, an off --
54 1
MR. WALKER:
A training, a relief shift, an off 2
shift, a night shift, and a day shift.
The Utility can 3
. correct me where I'm wrong when I say that.
When I read their 4
shift schedule, and I have one in my briefcase which I left in 5
the hall, that's the way I read it. But it is five complete 6
shifts of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> apiece.
7 MR. DENTON:
And I think one point, too, it is not 8
unique here at this station. The other Duke units operate 9
essentially the same way.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes. I was using this to try to 11 understand it. You have a shift that comes on, then a shift 12 that goes off.
Now, is there overlap, and is the next shift 13 really the number one shift again?
14 MR. WALKER:
There is an overlap, and it will often 15 be the same shift again. It depends on where they are in their 16 cycle.
Portions of their cycle gives up to seven days off. I 17 have a chart in my briefcase. I wish I had brought it in with 18 me. But it gives a long period off, which is one of the 19 advantages of the shifts, and at times you are not going to be 20.
relieved by the same shift, but there is overlap between them.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
When I was down there recently, 22 I went into the whole shift business in some detail.
In order 23 to do a 12-hour shift, with five watch shifts, it is a 4
24 complicated arrangement. You can make it come out fair.
I can j
25 guarantee you that the operators watch it very carefully.
But
55 1
what it really means is that nobody, as I understand it, 2
stands more than four 12-hour shifts in a row.
That is rather 3
important because naturally you are concerned about them 4
getting too tired.
But then they have after that, if I 5
recall, depending on which part of the shift they are in, they 6
have two days off, at least, and then they are on again but 7
then they are off, and they have a one-week period, it seems 8
to me, seven days, I think, that they are off entirely.
9 The operators, to a man, that I talked to down there 10 assured me that they don't feel that they are overly tired, 11 they can stand the 12-hour shift, there is plenty of time 12 off.
I said, well, you probably like it but how about your 13 wife?
Most of the wives, I was assured, like the shift. I am 14 not so sure about that answer.
15
[ Laughter.]
16 One young man said: My wife likes all of it except 17 for the seven days I'm off.
She's kind of tired when I'm 18 around.
19
[ Laughter.)
i i
20 I figured that was a pretty honest answer. But the 21 shift does work pretty well.
Twelve hours is a little bit 22 different. Most plants, as we all know, you are on eight-hour 23 shifts, but I was satisfied at Catawba that the 12-hour shift 24 is working well.
At least the operators speak very highly of i
25 it.
But it is kind of complicated, and you can understand i
l-
56 1
that wh;n you look at tho way thsy havo to work it all out, 2
but it is fair, they are happy with it, and it looks to me, at 3
least from my observation and thinking about it in my past 4
experience too, that 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> seems like a long time for any 5
of us to be attentive.
On the other hand, you have to 6
realize these are young people, younger than I am, anyway, and 7
they seem to be pretty bright and alert at that eleventh hour, 8
and I think it is probably a very satisfactory way for them to 9
do business.
But it is interesting because it is different 10 from the eight-hour shift, but it does seem to work in a 11 satisfactory manner as far as I can tell.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Two other questions on the 13 shift.
Are there any limitations in the number of hours an 14 individual can be on watch over a period of time?
15 MR. WALKER:
I am going to let someone else answer 16 that.
17 (Pause.]
18 Their operations manager when he comes on will tell 19 you what the limitations are.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I am intrigued by this 22 12-hour shift thing. I wouldn't want to saddle Chairman 23 Palladino with this, but how often would I get to be off?
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Excuse me.
I would like to get 25 down to 12-hour days.
57 1
MR. WALKER:
Commissioner Bernthal, I could show you 2
if I went to my briefcase, but I would like to point out 3
something. I have gone to all three facilities recently, 4
talked with several people, and they have people volunteering 5
for this shift because they like it so much.
6 I would also like to say there are some other 7
elements of Duke's staffing which is unique.
They staff all e
five shifts very heavily, not just with operations people but 9
with maintenance people, health physics people, instrument 10 control people, chemistry people, tool room people, materials 11 people, et cetera.
I think I have the slides to illustrate 12 this.
13 If you look at the tech specs requirement in the 14 second column of the shift staffing, you will find that they 15 are strongly over in SROs and control room operators, and you 16 will see a strong complement of nuclear equipment 17 operators. That is not unusual for a utility.
They often have 18 ten nuclear equipment operators, non-licensed people, on 19 shift, but when you look at the second side, if we have it, 20 which is Slide 7A, you will see a strong commitment to 21 staffing on each of those shifts for a complete maintenance 22 and health physics organization.
You will see a supervisor, i
23 and this is showing what is current and they are still i
24 staffing in this area.
l 25 They have a mechanical maintenance supervisor on I
L
58 1
with nina craft, two I&C supervisors with 12 craft, six health 2
physics technicians, in chemistry and rad waste they have six, 3
three in rad waste and three in power, two materials, two tool 4
room.
This is on each shift, each of the five shifts. And 5
they have not completed their staffing in the area.
I have 6
been to McGuire and Ocones, and they are even heavier staffed.
7 I think it is something that goes beyond our 8
requirements and is worthy of note.
9 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
It is a very strong 10 organization, there is no question about it, with a lot of 11 experience and a lot of SRO-type experience, which is very 12 good.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
They seem to have quite a
\\
14 number of people in the control room.
I think maybe you have 15 answered my question. I was going to ask you why there are so 16 many people in the control room.
17
[ Commissioner Bernthal leaves the meeting at 3:25 18 p.m.)
19 MR. WALKER:
Yes, they do-have a strong control room 20 organization, although you will find most of those nuclear 21 equipment operators are not in the control room.
They are 22 well disciplined in the control room at Catawba.
23 If you don't have any questions, that completes my 24 discussion on staffing, and I would turn it back over to Tom 25 Novak.
59 1
MR. NOVAK Thank you, Roger.
2 I wanted to address a few things.
One is we intend 3
to issue a Supplement 6 concurrent with the issuance of this 4
license.
My understanding is Commissioner Bernthal had some 5
interest in what it contained.
6 I think it is fair to say it is just a carry-on of 7
our activities.
When we looked at Catawba Unit 1, 8
specifically when we looked at the main steam line break 9
accident and the concerns over what was called the superheat 10 issue, there were some residual problems.
We licensed the 11 plant with the conditions that required certain responses from 12 Duke.
13 They have provided those responses and we have 14 continued to review it, with regard, for example, to a 15 concern that we had for steam line breaks inside containment.
16 Westinghouse had recognized there was substantial 17 cooling that could be applied because of the draining that 18 would occur from the ice beds.
Well, we wanted to see the 19 test data.
That's been provided, and we're willing now to say 20 that that seems like it's an acceptable heat transfer model 21 for calculating environments inside containment in the event 22 of a steamline break.
So we will be writing off on that 23 license condition.
24 Also with regard to steamline breaks, we were 25 looking at what was referred to a the doghouse.
This is a
60
,1 rath0r confined geometry where things like the main steam 2
isolation valves are located.
And Westinghouse had earlier 3
indicated a concern that if you had a certain steamline break, 4
you can uncover the steam generator tubes, and your enthalpy 5
resulting from the steamline break could actually reach 6
superheat conditions.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Could actually what?
8 MR. NOVAK:
Reach superheat conditions.
9 So the exiting steam was actually superheated rather 10 as opposed to saturated.
11 (Commissioner Bernthal reentered the hearing room at 12 3:28 o' clock, p.m.)
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Now this is steam going through
.\\
14 the ice condenser?
15 MR. NOVAK:
No.
This is if you have a main 16 steamline break, and if the break is located -- it's just a 17 pipe break -- and as the tube bundle uncovers, the mass and 18 energy released, the water coming off the tubes, can be heated 19 up, the steam can be heated up to more or less the temperature 20 of the top portion of the U-tube.
That will give you a 21 superheat condition, and that was the thing that Westinghouse 22 identified.
23 It just meant that the environmental --
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
This is reaching superheat 25 because you're pressure has gone down?
61 1
MR. NOVAK:
Yes, sir.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Oh, okay.
3 MR. NOVAK:
And Westinghouse went back and reviewed 4
this, and the consequence was that you had to go back and look 5
at the environmental conditions now both inside containment 6
and outside containment.
7 Well, we went back and did this and are now 8
satisfied that Westinghouse has an acceptable mass and energy 9
release computer program and calculates the temperatures that 10 we now find reasonable.
11 So we went ahead and looked at that and satisfied 12 ourselves now that their equipment is, in fact, qualified for 13 steamline breaks both inside and outside containment.
14 The third item that's of interest is again our 15 continued efforts on the hydrogen issue.
When we issued Unit 16 l's license, there was still some confirmatory items necessary 17 to be resolved.
There was a question of whether, in fact, the 18 igniters would maintain their temperature when you had sprays.
19 Westinghouse'went back, and Duke did also, to look 20 at just what kind of spray environments would you see..We 21 looked at the data and were satisfied that the igniter 22 temperatures remain hot enough to ignite certain mixtures of 23 hydrogen.
24 We had some questions about the ice condenser doors, 25 how they would operate.
We had some questions about -- they
62 1
call thcm cir return fans, and if you had certain pressure 2
differentials occurring due to hydrogen burns, could you 3
possibly fail the air return fans.
4 So these are things that we worked on, and Duke has 5
come back with a submittal proposing what I would call a final 6
program to clean up all of the items regarding hydrogen inside 7
of an ice condenser.
Their program will run through the end 8
of 1987.
We think it's a responsible program.
We think it 9
will settle some of the residual questions we had regarding 10 the responses to a degraded core condition where you have 11 substantial amounts of hydrogen.
So we will be providing that 12 as part of CSER-6.
13 It really just goes one step forward in closing out 1*
the previous license conditions that existed on the Unit 1 15 license.
We've just made progress, and we're recognizing it.
16 Another item you might notice, although we didn't --
17 is, for example, we've continued to be concerned cbout turbine 18 missiles, and we've conditioned the license such that we're 19 looking for a maintenance progr'am where the Licensee will go 20 in and do the necessary maintenance portions of the turbine.
21 The Licensee, Duke, did submit this program.to us.
22 We reviewed it.
We find it acceptable, and we expect not to 23 have to condition the license to require this mandatory 24 three-year inspection.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I forget the orientation of the
-~ _
63 1
turbinna.
I was down there a couple of years ago, but --
2 MR. NOVAK:
The orientation?
3 MR. JABBOUR:
The orientation of the turbine is 4
favorable at Catawba.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It is favorable.
It looks like 6
it from this picture I have here.
7 MR. NOVAK:
Sometimes our materials people don't ask 8
that question.
They just --
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, it's a long time since 10 I've asked that.
11 MR. NOVAK:
Yes, it is a favorable orientation.
12 And one other thing we've changed in the license l
13 that we sent down is effective earlier this week, the change 14 to GDC-4 is official -- that is, the leak before break -- I'm 15 sorry -- the restraints for certain pipe breaks, the removal 16 of the constraints.
17 We had granted an exemption to Duke for the first 18 two refuelings unless the rule was passed.
The rule is now 19 effective, and we've made that change to'the license.
1 20 So with that, we think -- the Staff has concluded l
21 that the Licensee has indeed satisfied all requirements for 22 issuance of a full-power license for Unit 2.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I've got one question on 24 this hydrogen control business.
It's not like this is the first ice condenser plant -- I can't name them all by a long 25 i
l I
,64 s
1 shot, I suppose -- I know Sequoyah has two ice condenser 2
containments.
3 We've been fussing around with this issue now for a 4
long time, and I'm a little surprised to hear it come up still 5
as a central -- not a big issue, but that it even should be 6
coming up as an issue in licensing this of what must be -- you 7
tell me -- how many ice condenser plants.
8 MR. NOVAK:
Well, Donald C.
Cook is operating with 9
two units.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
So how many ice condensers 11 have we licensed already?
4 12 MR. NOVAK:
This will be the sixth one.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
The sixth one.
So when did 14 we license the first one?
Several years ago.
j 15 MR. NOVAK:
Several years ago, sir.
Donald C.
Cook 16 was the first one.
And that may have been in the mid '70s.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What le the issue on this one
[
18 now?
You've told me the recombiners, and there's igniters.
19 MR. NOVAK:
The issue here is basically,'if you have 20 uhat I'll call a very challenging problem, you can develop a 21 variety of different scenarios for a degraded core condition, 22 and you then have to go through and look at all the ways in I,
23 uhich hydrogen can deform, and it becomes a very -- a 24 technical problem of many initial conditions that can be 25 assumed.
4
,.-.,-._,__.._,.._____m
.__,,__.,_m_.____7
,__c_, -,
__,.y_
65 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But it can't be unique to 2
this plant.
3 MR. NOVAK:
No, it isn't.
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
It must be generic.
5 MR. NOVAK:
Right.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
All these questions are 7
generic.
Why has it taken us ten years to get them cleared 8
up?
9 MR. NOVAK:
Well, I would say the reason is, the 10 Staff and the Commission has not be prescriptive.
We have 11 said, "You must design for 70 percent metal / water reaction,"
12 for example, but we haven't given the specific scenario.
And
/
13, you can certainly conjure up many scenarios that would give 14 yor 70 percent metal / water reaction.
And then it's a question 15 of trying to identify or bound a reasonable set, and this has 16 been worked on.
The analytical programs have improved, and so
(
17 there's a reason to want to go back and make sure you're doing 18 it better today than you did five years ago.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Does this have to do with the~
20 pocketing of the hydrogen?
21 Md. NOVAK:
Some of that.
We certainly have the 22 most knowledgeable person on the Staff here in the room.
23 That's Mr. Charlie Tinkler.
And I'd like him to -- ask him to 24 give us about a two or three-minute summary of why he thinks 25 we're still continuing to review this problem.
66 1
CHAIRMAN'PALLADINO:
But 10 any probl'em specific to 2
Catawba on this?
3
'MR. NOVAK:
No.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
They seem to have themselves 5
well covered with a large number of igniters.
6 MR. NOVAK:
I would view the question as generic.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And recombiners.
8 MR. NOVAK:
And the recombiners; that's correct.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
They seem to have taken -- made lo a distribution such that pocketing should be capable of being 11 handled.
12 So what is it that we're analyzing?
Whether or not 13 we're -- I'm not sure what it is that-we're trying to 14 analyze.
To confirm the pocketing capabil_ity?
15 MR. TINKLER:
No.
Basi ~cally the rule on degraded 16 core hydrogen control requires a demonstration of equipment 17 survivability and containment integrity for a variety of 18 spectra, if you will, of degraded core accident sequences.
19 And in past evaluations of equipment survivability, the ice 20 condenser owners chose to emphasize analysis of one particular 21 degraded core accident sequence.
And based on comparative 22 evaluations between calculations for other accident sequences, 23 we reached a judgment that if equipment survivability were 24 demonstrated clearly for one degraded core accident sequence, 25 then it was judged to be adequate for a demonstration of
67 1
cquipmsnt curvivcbility for that spectrum of degraded core 2
accident sequences.
3 Subsequent and ongoing research into this area 4
suggested that equipment survivability was sensitive to the 5
selection of a particular degraded core accident sequence, and 6
for that particular reason, we have~ requested Duke to 7
reevaluate equipment survivability for a broader spectrum of 8
accident sequences than originally chosen.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, is it a fair statement 10 that Duke is now committed to trying to clean this area up 11 once and for all, I guess for everybody as well as for 12 themselves, so we reach some resolution and have some degree 13 of certainty that we understand and are satisfied with 14 hydrogen control in~this particular type of containment?
15 Is that a fair statement?
16 MR. TINKLER:
I believe the program proposed will 17 resolve those residual concerns -- that is, you know, the 18 efforts being undertaken by Duke are quite similar to ongoing 19 work being performed by American Electric Power for the 20 D.C.
Cook plant.
So it will not -- in that sense, it does not 21 do the work for all utilities in that there is a parallel 22 effort underway now.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
24 MR. DENTON:
I think this concludes our 25 presentation, and we would recommend that you approve our
68 1
icaunnco of a full-power license when all the low-power 2
conditions are met.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, thank you very F.uch.
4 I asked all my questions, I think, as we went along, 5
so I'm going to see if other colleagues have any other 6
questions, and then I would propose to invite'the Licensee to 7
join us at the table.
8 Do you have any questions?
Fred, do you have any 9
more?
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
No.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Lando?
12 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
No, thank you.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay, well, thank you very 14 much, gentlemen.
15 I wonder if the representatives from Duke Power 16 Company would join us?
17 (Pause.]
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We are pleased to have you 19 here, and we will give you an opportunity to make any comments 20 that you'd like.
I think you heard some of the questions that 21 we've raised along the way, and maybe you can help clarify 22 some of the points that were made during the discussion.
23 MR. TUCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
24 I'm H.B. Tucker, Vice President of Nuclear l
25 Production for Duke Power Company, and as was pointed out in c
69 1
the discussion, Duke is the Licensee for this unit, but we are 2
not the owner.
3 The owners of the unit are represented today 4
by Mr. James Bauer, who represents Piedmont Municipal Power 5
Agency that owns 25 percent of the unit, and on my right is 6
Dennis Cameron, who represents North Carolina Municipal Power 7
Authority No. 1, which owns 75 percent of the unit by title.
8 This will be the seventh nuclear unit that Duke 9
Power Company has obtained a license for full-power operation 10 of a nuclear unit.
The first three units at Oconee, the first 11 one going in operation in 1973.
As you know, we have two it units licensed at McGuire.
The CatGwba Mo. 1 was licensed and 13 went into commercial operation in 1985, about twelve months 14 ahead of schedule and within budget.
This unit, the No. 2 15 unit, is approximately eleven months ahead of schedule, under 16 budget, and coming in at less than any other comparable unit 17 in cost in the United States.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What was the total construction 19 time?
20 MR. TUCKER:
The actual total construction time was 21 revised over quite a period of time, because of the changes 22 that took place in that period of time, according to license 23 requirement.
But the last schedule was set -- and 24 Mr. Hampton, I'll ask you -- when was the date of that i
25 schedule?
70 1
MR. HAMPTON:
December.
2 MR. TUCKER:
I mean when was it actually set, the 3
final schedule?
4 MR. HAMPTON:
For Unit No. 27 5
MR. TUCKER:
Yes.
6 MR. HAMPTON:
I believe it was
'82.
7 MR. TUCKER:
1982 was the schedule that we refer to 8
when we say " ahead of schedule."
We improved that on this 9
unit by eleven months.
10 I think that response to the comments made earlier 11 about our internal capability in designing and constructing 12 our facilities, and we were able because of that, and this 13 being our last plant, to assemble on this site a management 14 and construction team that I think demonstrated what can be 15 accomplished.
16 I think it also points out that, with all the units 17 that we have operating, the depth of resources, both technical 18 and managerial, that Duke has to operate facilities.
Our 19 station personnel have been at the site for quite some period 20 of time, having come there a considerable length of time prior 21 to operation.
Our operating personnel are licensed to operate 22 both units, rather than just a single unit.
They have the 23 experience associated with the No. 1 unit, plus previous 24 experience.
There are seven members of the supervisory and 25 operating management staff that have been licensed on other
71 1
Duke units in addition to the Catawba No.
1.
2 So we think we have a depth of experience there that 3
qualifies us to operate this unit both safely and efficiently.
4 We have revised -- excuse me -- we conducted -- the 5
Region mentioned the readiness for operation.
I have on my 6
staff a Manager of Safety Assurance.
He put together at both 7
Catawba No. 1 and again at Catawba No. 2 a readiness review 8
program to make sure that we, ourselves, felt we were in a 9
position to operate this unit.
That has been conducted with a lo satisfactory response.
11 As far as our training programs, that was alluded 12 to.
The training programs for Catawba are under the INPO 13 program of accreditation and will be ready for accreditation 14 by the end of this year.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That's all of your programs?
16 MR. TUCKER:
All of our programs will be ready for 17 accreditation.
18 As far as Duke's commitment is concerned, it's to 19 all of our facilities, but Unit No. 2 at Catawba is no l
20 different.
We include that into our overall commitment that 21 we will operate our units safely, reliably, and efficiently.
22 I think we have demonstrated this in previous units, and it is 23 our intent to continue this to demonstrate to the industry and 24 to all those concerned of our ability of generating 25 electricity with nuclear power.
72 1
Comments were made about the SALP rating, and there 2
was one comment made about some Vice Presidents, and maybe I 3
was one of those.
I might ask him about that.
But I think 4
Region II is correct in setting their standards high.
I think 5
we at Duke Power Company -- and probably Mr. Hampton will tell 6
you so -- that we set our standards even higher than they do.
7 A comment was made about the McGuire performance, 8
and we are very much aware of that, and it is our intent and 9
we have programs underway to address those.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I take it you know what to 11 do to get an A, though?
12 MR. TUCKER:
I not only know; I intend to get that 13 A,
sir.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
15 MR. TUCKER:
That's our intent.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
To earn it.
17 MR. TUCKER:
Yes, sir, to earn it.
And I think that 18 we have demonstrated that.
Our Oconee plant, for example, 19 which is much more mature and experienced in everything, I 20 think has an outstanding record.
21 The No. 2 unit right now is at approximately 1 22 percent power.
We have completed all of the low-power 23 testing.
The unit is ready for power escalation, and we are 24 just awaiting the issuance of the full-power license, and we l
l 25 will begin the power escalation as soon as we have that l
0 73 1
license.
2 Some questions were raised about the No. 1 unit and
'I 3
the trip this morning.
It was, as explained, created by the 4
failure of one of channels that we have.
We have the 5
two-out-of-four logic capability on that unit.
The operator 6
did try to change to the other channel, but was unable to do 7
that rapidly enough to avoid the trip.
8 Everything did respond as normal.
When we got here 9
and telephoned back, we still had not ascertained precisely 10 what happened to that particular control unit.
We will 11 determine that, though.
The unit will not return to service 12 for a period of approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> because of the time of 1
13 life of the core and the inability to override xenon.
So we l
14 will be returning the unit to service approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 15 following the trip.
16 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
When you find out what happened.
17 MR. TUCKER:
Yes, sir.
That's a part of our review 18 process.
19 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Right.
l 20 MR. TUCKER:
We will determine that.
l l
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
And you are satisfied that 22 you've got it fixed.
{
23 MR. TUCKER:
Yes, sir.
I 24 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Right.
25 MR. TUCKER:
I think, without going into any details l
l
74 1
of preparation for the plant, I think the Staff has adequately 2
presented the course of review that has been followed by the 3
Staff and the Region and our input to that.
So unless you i
4 have some specific questions about that, then I will move on 5
to try to address some of the things I noted that came out 6
during that discussion, and if I fail to respond to those, and 7
if you will bring them up, I'll be happy to try to answer 8
them.
9 The question was made about the upper head injection 10 and its role.
We looked at this because of a question of 11 reliability, personnel exposure, and what we considered 3
12 contributing to transients on the unit unnecessarily.
13 Westinghouse was very much involved; in fact, conducted the 14 analyses for us that were submitted, and I think we have 15 demonstrated that the plant cannot be operated without 16 compromising safety without this system.
4 17 The physical arrangement in the plant does create 18 problems in terms of maintenance of the plant and personnel 19 exposure that is very undesirable and time-consuming.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You are going to keep in on for 21 awhile?
22 MR. TUCKER:
We will on the Catawba units.
It's our 23 intent to go through the process of review with the Staff and 24 ultimately remove the system from both McGuire and Catawba, 25 all four units.
75 1
CEAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Because until you remove the 2
system, you will still have the disadvantages, I presume --
3 MR. TUCKER:
Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
-- of having them isolated.
5 MR. TUCKER:
That's correct.
6 There was quite a bit of discussion about the 7
diesels.
I would comment that one question was asked if the 8
quick starts had contributed to the failures that we had 9
experienced.
10 I would answer that with a negative response.
We 11 don't see that it has.
But I would like to point out that the 12 number of tests referred to is not the total number of 13 starts.
There are many starts beyond that on a unit that do 14 not constitute the definition of a test.
So the unit was 15 actually started considerably more than that.
16 Also, the two failures that we had on the 2-B diesel l's were corrected, and they were prior to licensing the unit.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But when you count or when you 19 try to compute the reliability as far as start-up is 20 concerned, don't you count all the starts, whether they're 21 tests or not tests?
22 MR. TUCKER:
No, sir.
It's only starts for test.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It's only the starts for test?
24 MR. TUCKER:
That's correct.
i 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That seems strange.
- Okay,
76 1
well, maybe the Japanese count it differently.
2 MR. TUCKER:
They do.
3
[ Laughter.)
4 MR. TUCKER:
I was going to address the Japanese 5
difference, but I think Carl did a good job on that, and I 6
won't get into it.
But there's quite a bit of difference in 7
the way they operate and maintain their test requirements than 8
our units.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
The reason I asked the 10 question about start-up time, as you probably know, is that we 11 were out at -- visited EPRI recently, and the raised the 12 serious question of whether these very short start-up times 13 don't have diminishing returns, because they are harder on the f
\\
14 diesel supposedly, and at the same time may not, strictly 15 speaking, be required for plant protection.
And we're talking 16 here -- I've forgotten the numbers, but I guess some larger 17 fraction of a minute compared to a smaller fraction.
You know 18 the numbers; I don't.
19 Do you have any comment on that, or is that an 20 unresolved issue, -in your view?
21 MR. TUCKER:
The requirements today, particularly 22 the revised tech specs that we are applying for, will be much 23 easier on the equipment.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Longer start-ups, you mean?
25 MR. TUCKER:
Yes.
And less demanding on the
77 1
equipment.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes, okay.
3 MR. TUCKER:
And even what we have now is less than 4
it used to be.
So we recognize that in this country and are 5
moving, I think, in the right direction.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay, thanks.
7 MR. TUCKER:
A couple other questions relative --
8 well, comments were made about the SALP report, and I do say 9
that I think that Region II does conduct a very thorough 10 inspection program.
Our relationship with Region II has been 11 on a very professional basis, and I respect their -- the 12 integrity of their program.
I think the fact that the is and i
13 2s show up a little bit different than perhaps some other 14 Regions -- I have not reviewed those in detail.
I have looked 15 at some others, and when you read them by wording and the 16 definitions, there seems to be a little bit of inconsistence.
17 And I don't advocate that Region II bring theirs down; I 18 suggest that the others bring theirs up.
19 Some comments about our 12-hour shift.
It is an 20 unusual arrangement.
The question was asked about if there's 21 a limit.
There is a limit of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> that any one person can 22 have.
}
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Over what period of time?
l l
24 MR. TUCKER:
Over the period of a week.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
A week.
72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
l l
l
78 1
MR. TUCKER:
There has not been any occurrence of 2
that.
We operate these -- the way we have it set up, as was 3
pointed out, was a combination team of operators, maintenance, 4
and other personnel, and those people stay together, so that 5
we do have a group of people who are used to working together 6
continuously.
They have the same days off.
They work 7
together, and it affords some real opportunities.
It's the 8
first time in my 37 years of experience of operating power 9
plants that I've ever had volunteers for shifts 10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is there overlap from one shift 11 to another, I presume?
12 MR. TUCKER:
There is a turnover period associated 13 with it with a procedure for turnover to be sure that there is 14 no omission of einything relative to the operation of the 15 plant.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But your plan doesn't call for 17 the 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
i l
la MR. TUCKER:
No, sir.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If I understood it correctly, l
20 it was four 12-hour shifts.
1 I
21 MR. TUCKER:
Their normal schedule is, one week they i
22 will work four 12-hour days out of the week; the next week l
23 they will work three 12-hours.
So they work a 36 and a 48 l
24 week.
25 Now it doesn't come out exactly that way every l
l
79 1
week.
It was mentioned that five times a year, every ten 2
weeks, they have an additional seven days off, so they get 3
five vacations that most people don't get.
4 So it's been very popular with our people and quite 5
successful.
We've seen no degradation of performance.
We 6
have seen an improvement in absenteeism.
We've seen a 7
reduction of personnel accidents.
All of the kinds of 8
indicators that we've looked at are very positive relative to 9
that shift operation.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, that's good to hear, 11 because, as you know, when I was down visiting catawba-1 12 before its license, I had some concerns.
And there's a 13 subjective and then objective evaluation of these things.
14 It's nice to be popular, and I can understand why it's a 15 popular system.
But it's good to hear that your objective 16 indicators are that performance, I trust, improves, in fact, 17 under this system.
i 18 MR. TUCKER:
In fact, I was looking at some of these 19 indicators for the total Nuclear Production Department at Duke
~ Power Company for this year in preparation for a presentation 20 21 to management, and in the last five years, there's been a 22 continuous decline in absenteeism and the other factors 1
23 dealing with the personal aspect of the individual employee.
24 It's been very successful.
l 25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I almost hesitate to ask I
80 1
this, but have you ever run a long-term test, using a 2
simulator perhaps, to simulate 12-hour shifts and operator 3
acuity during the 12-hour shift?
4 MR. TUCKER:
We have not done that, to actually 5
demand that kind of performance on a simulator.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Yes.
7 MR. TUCKER:
No, we have not.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
It sounds like your other 9
indicators are all good, so on balance it sounds like it's 10 working well.
11 MR. TUCKER:
It is.
12 Are there other questions that came up that I did 13 not catch?
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I don't recall any.
But let me 15 ask my colleagues.
16 MR. TUCKER:
Are there any questions that you didn't 17 bring up with the Staff that I can answer for you, i
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I have a couple minor 19 questions, quick answers, I hope.
20 I seem to recall when I was in Germany a summer or i
21 two ago, there is at least one ice condenser plant there, I 22 believe, and they complained that one of the biggest headaches 23 they had was ice sublimation.
It sort of disappears after 24 awhile.
l 25 How do you beat that?
Is there a special measure I
i l
.. - - -... ~ - - - - - - - -.. -
o 81 1
that you take?
Is there a chemical coating or something?
2 What do you do?
Or do you just keep refilling them?
How does 3
it work?
4 MR. TUCKER:
It requires continuous attention to 5
live with it.
And we have managed, and it's our intent, that 6
sublimation -- replacement of ice due to sublimation will not 7
be a critical path item during outage, and we've been 8
successful in that.
9 We've done a lot of research in various kinds of 10 things, including such things as you alluded to, to actually 11 develop a synthetic compound that we could put around the ice, 12 that would disappear when water hit it, but would stay there 13 with ice.
But then we found physically it wouldn't stand up, 14 because the ice would break holes in it.
15 So we've done a lot of research, and we've improved 16 the techniques considerably.
We have only melted ice in one 17 condenser, and that was back on McGuire No. 1 prior to la licensing.
Since then, we've been able to live with the 19 sublimation, and we think we can manage that.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
One other short one, and 21 that was to point out the unique circumstance.
I think this is the onAy plant that is 100 percent unowned, not owned by 22 23 the operator.
That's extraordinary.
I think perhaps in some 24 circumstances it's to be encouraged.
And I'm interested in 25 what the arrangement is between you, the owners, and Duke
82 1
Powar, ths operator, with respect to the financial resources 2
required for the operations.
3 I think I know the answer, but perhaps I'd better 4
let you answer.
5 MR. TUCKER:
Let me give you an answer, and then the 6
other two gentlemen.
7 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Are there going to be three 8
different answers?
9
[ Laughter.)
10 MR. TUCKER:
There should not be.
11 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
There had better not be.
12 MR. TUCKER:
We do have an operating agreement that 13 was established prior to going into operation with the No. 1 14 unit, and the prescribes specifically how it shall be 15 handled.
It also is tied into, in terms of replacement power, 16 in association with our McGuire unit as a backup source.
17 But title is set up this way.
By principle of 18 operation, we divide the ownership a little bit differently, 19 in terms of we consider Duke as 12.5 percent ownership in the 20 plant, which is different from 25 percent in one unit and 21 nothing in the other unit.
So under that concept, we manage 22 it that way, and in terms of actually operating the plant, we 23 are the operator of the plant.
Of course, we designed it, and 24 we built it.
They have access to all information, and we have 25 specific agreements on this type of arrangement, and we meet
83 1
periodically with them.
2 Dennis, on my right here, is stationed onsite, stays 3
there, and some of the other owners have people onsite, 4
representatives, so they follow very closely what we're doing, 5
and I can assure you that they are watching very closely the 6
expenses of operation, and we answer all their questions 7
relative to that.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But the key point is that 9
you, then, do have a financial stake in whatever operations, 10 expenditures, and resources may be required for both units.
11 MR. TUCKER:
Yes.
That's correct.
By the 12 agreement.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is your operating agreement a 14 matter of public record?
I presume it would be.
15 MR. TUCKER:
Yes, sir, it is.
It has to be with the 16 owners involved.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Any more questions?
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
No.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Lando?
20 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Just a comment.
Duke has a very 21 fine reputation in the nuclear industry, and I know this is 22 your seventh plant that you are involved in.
23 I think it's important, though, that you continue 24 to meet the challenge that you have for leadership and 25 excellence, and I think your management involvement has been
84 1
ona of your strongest points.
I think that your attention to 2
detail and the way you delve into things is also important.
3 Discipline and formality are part of the things that I know 4
you emphasize at Duke Power Company.
5 But the important thing, I think, in your position 6
of leadership is not to be complacent.
You've got plenty of 7
things to do still.
Seven plants is a lot to manage, and in 8
my view, competent performance is the name of the game.
9 Safety and public health are very real.
Reliability is real.
10 And I think you have a continuing challenge to meet, and I 11 think to continue to strive for excellence and continue to 12 involve yourself, as you do, in many, many aspects of the 13 entire utility program is appropriate for your position of 14 leadership.
15 But when you are in that position, you also have an 16 added responsibility, in my view, and we are counting on you 17 to follow through and continue the hard work and the 4
18 excellence that's desired and necessary to succeed in this 19 important program you're involved in.
20 So I think it's important that you, again, try to 21 follow through on what you're doing and not slow down.
I 22 would like to think that you would even continue an enhanced 23 effort toward improvement, because you can, I believe, have an 24 influence on many of our utilities, so that they can improve 25 themselves.
So I just think it's important that as you move r
s
85 1
forward that you koop in mind the real challenge that you 2
have.
3 MR. TUCKER:
We understand that, Commissioner Zech, 4
and I assure you, Duke is committed to that.
We think we have 5
earned a reputation in our industry, and I'm not so sure that 6
it's not going to be more of a challenge to maintain that 7
reputation than it was to earn it.
But we intend to do so.
8 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Good.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I echo Commissioner Zech's 10 comments.
As a matter of fact, I was going to urge you to 11 proceed cautiously.
I know you've heard this before, but I 12 think it bears repeating, because this is one area in which we
~
13 don't want to take shortcuts in the escalation and testing of 14 the plant.
15 So with that, unless there are other comments, I was 16 going to see if the Commission is ready to vote on the 17 question as to whether or not we would authorize the Staff to 18 issue a full-power license for Catawba Unit No. 2 when the 19 Staff feels it's ready.
20 Are you ready to vote on that?
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Ready.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
All those in favor 23 of authorizing the Staff to issue a full-power license for 24 Catawba Unit No. 2 when the Staff feels it is ready, indicate 25 by saying aye.
w
=
86 1
COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Aye.
2 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Aye.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Aye.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Aye.
5 Opposed?
I guess four ayes.
No opposed.
4 6
Well, thank you very much, gentlemen.
We extend to 7
you our best wishes, and I again urge you to proceed with the 8
caution that's been characteristic of your operations.
9 MR. TUCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We appreciate 1
10 that vote of confidence, and our commitment is to do exactly 11 that.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
Anything more?
13
[No response.]
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We will stand adjourned.
15
[Whereupon, at 4:00 o' clock, p.m., the commission 16 meeting was adjourned.]
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1
6 0
1 2
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3
4 This is to certify that the attached events of a 5
meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6 7
TITLE OF MEETING: Discussion /Possible Vote on Full Power Operating License for Catawba-2 (Public Meeting) 8 PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, May 14, 1986 10 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken 13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17 b)cJ
g-- p %
i 18 77--,-----------
19 l
20 i
l 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23 l
l 24 25 l
l l
l
CCH:SS::0X 3I?ZXG 2
ON THE J W a 3 g,,\\ S,\\ o q
.a v m..
v 2a CATAW3A XT 2
i 4
YAY :.6,1963 CONTACT:
K. JAB 50UR X27367 l
p
,,7 3,,,,,
,,, q n
(
1 4
\\
6 V
s J
.J 1
i
- i::C3NS33S ?LAN" 3ACIG30'JNJ l
i l
l
- 0?33A":0NS
- S?ECLA1 J3S::GN F3A"U33S
- YAJ03 ?SA3
- SSU3S l
i
- ~:NS?3C" ION ?30G3AE
- Si ?" S"A??::NG i
1 l
I
- CONC 1US"0N i
sni j
i
- lC3NS33S ? ANT 3ACXG30JNJ
- MULTIPLE OWNERS AND LICENSEES FOR UNIT 2
- NORTH CAR 0llNA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY (75T.)
- PEDM0NT MUNICEAL POWER AGENCT (25%)
l
- DUKE POWER COMPANY OPERATOR AND AGENT FOR OWNERS
- PIANT DESIGN
- TESTINGHOUSE PWR - 3411 MWt (1145 MYe)
- ICE C6NDENSER CONTAINMB7
- A/E AND CONSTRUCTOR: DUKE POTER COMPANY
- SITE
- 1,00ATED AT LAEI THlE, YOPI COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
- NEAPIS1' CITY - ROCK Hill SOLTH CAROLINA (6 MILES)
+ POPULATION: 35,344 (1980)
- POPULATION, CENTER - CHARLOITE, NORTH CAR 0 LINA (11 MILE 5) f
~ + POPULATION: 314,477 (1980) l
- OFFSITE EMERGENCY PIANNING l
f
- EMERGENCY EIERCISE
{
- FEMA EVALUATION l
- OPERATING LICENSE HEARINGS
- HIF.'RCATID HE.GINGS
- ASI3 PARTIAL INITIAL DECIS'ONS: JUNE, SEPTEMBER AND NOVEMBER,1984 l
l
- ASIAB AFFIRMATIONS: JULY AND NOVEMBER,1985 j
l SUDE 2 l
0?33A":::XS
~
CA"AW3A UN:71 INITLE CRITICALITY-JANUARY 7,1985 COMMERCLE OPERATION-JUNE 29,1985 JULY 1955 THROUGH APRIL 1986 PERFORMANCE:
CAPACITY FACTOR-73%
AVAILWLITY FACTOR-83%
REACTOR TRIPS-5 CATAWBA UNIT 2 LOW POWER LICENSE ISSUED-FEBRUARY 24, 1986 INITIAL CRITICALITY-MAY 8,1986 YeGU::RE UNIT 1 UNIT 2 INITIAL CRITICALITY AUGUST 8,1981 MAY 8,1983 COMMERCLE OPERATION DECEMBER 1,1981 EWCH 1,1984 1985 PERFORMANCE:
SCR.OIS 6
11 CAPACITY FACTOR 52%
64%
AV.GABILITY FACTOR 69%
70%
S' OE 3 J
i i
S?IC:L J3S::GN FIA"J:ES CON"A::Nk:EN"
- ICE CONDENSER PRESSURE SUPPRESSION
- HYDROGEN IGNITION SYSTEM i
i 3 HERG 3NCY C0:E C00:2:NG SYS"3k:
'l
- UPPER HEAD INJECTION SYSTEM
~
S"ANJ3Y S:i7J0WN : PAC:1:1T
- INDEPENDENT OF CONTROL ROOM AND AUXILIARY SHUTDOWN COMPLEX CAPABILITIES
- IND.EPENDENT OF ONSITE POWER SUPPLY i
l i
f l
SUDE 4 l
(
L
kX03 ?SA:R ::SS~ES SITE
- PERMANEhT DEWATEPJNG SYSTEM CONTAINMENT
- MTROGEN C0h7ROL MEASURES
- COMPLEXITY IN MODELING HYDROGEN /STILui RELEASES
- COMFLEXIIY IN MCDELING COMEUSTION BEHAVIOR
- CONTAINMENT TEMPERATURE PROFILE DUE T0 HYDROGEN COMBUSTION
- EQUIPMENT SURVIVABILITY FOR VARIOUS ACCIDEh7 SCENARIOS STEAM GENERATORS
- FLOW-INDUCED TIBRATION IN PREEATER SECTION
- MASS AND ENERGY RELEASE TROX PARTIALLY UNCOVERED TUBE BUNDLE /SUPEREAT I
ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES I
- UPPER HEAD INJECTION
- IMPROVEMEhT5 IN VALIDATION OF TEFRAL HYDRAUIJC ANALYSIS i
- UPGRADE OF REACTOR C001 ANT SYSTEM POWER OPERATED RELIEF VAIJES i
j ON-SITE POWER SUPPLIES l
- RELIABIlTIT OF TDI DIESEL GESTRATORS l
- DIESEL GE'IPATOR INTAEE/ EXHAUST ELEVATION f
f
- INTLRNAL CORROSION PEG ~ECTION FOR FUEL CIL CORAGE TANES l
I l
SUDE 5 k
- XS?3CCION PROG 3D:
- CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION PROGRAM l
- PRE 0PERATION/0PERATION INSPECTION PROGEAM
- SPECIAL INSPECTIONS
- CONSTRUCTION ASSESSMENT
- SELF-INITIATED ETALUATION FOLLOTUP l
- TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW
- PROCEDURES REVIET
- TRAINING ASSESSMENT
- APPENDIX E
- NUPIG-0737 l
~
i
- READINESS REVIEF PINEL j
i h
- ALLEGATIONS i
sxte l
f
s u
Q3n b
c <
9 ~)
n o
4 m
i W
A U
w <
cc C
~
r' w
N E-to!
- ,1 O
o E
'~Z E
m A
9
("f d
e
~
o*
~
d O
b O
~
=%
x.
n a
r, b
I H
7 r.
Z e
r-E M
W n
W k
2 m
O
~e m
C
\\
f'2 W
4 F
M h
N b
x{
r.
^
4
==
A e
"4 i
A P
w Cr C
- l "V
N.
=,
~
n ry-r3 g
Z
~
M w
Z Z
Z ZZ N
C M
.4 4r me
'e x.
Zc
- e. s L.
^
~
c.,
w o
g4 O
I n
I' 2
C X
h U
? e,;
2 i
2 h
d b
3 Eb h
e r.e-N
-z i
,v s,
l
^
-a t
Z, v
~
V
.~
t
,v r.
k
[
A
.v l'
I y
C 1'
e
}
g a
l d
m i
}
p g
m C
o ^
l 9
i r.
i=
w
- v i
y l
l T
},
Vi O
$ 5".'.
~
1 v
f; e.,
s t
r,
,3
=
e V
9 sv I
i Tl r
~
r,
.f, Z
C'"
=
v2 O
H,
%L O
W z
0 (4
ZO E
I' t
j I
i l
l l
i t
l
i q,,g,,,,.
,, q,
Ci 1
V..
L./. J v
..V..
THE STAFF CONCLUDES THAT THE LICENSEES SATISFY All REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A FULL POWER LICENSE FOR CATATBA UNIT 2 I
e D
l t
i l
l SUDE 8 I
i i
SUP:?:13MISTA:s SA3'FING OX EACE SEIFT SUPERVISOR CRAFT MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE 1
9 INSTRUMENTATION AND 2
12 CONTROL HEALTH PHYSICS 0
6 CHEMISTRY (RADWASTE O
3/3 AND POWER)
MATERIALS 0
2 TOOL ROOM 0
2 SLIDE 7A
CATAWBA 1 & 2 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE CONSTRUCTION JUNE 1982-MAY 1983-MARCH 1984-APRIL 1983 FEB.
1984 SEPT.
1985 FUNCTIONAL AREAS CATEGORY CATEGORY CATEGORY l
1.
SOILS & FOUNDATION N/R N/R N/R 2.
CONTAINtiENT & OTHER 2
2 1
SAFETY-RELATED STRUCTURES l
3.
PIPING SYSTEMS AND 1
2 1
SUPPORTS
~
4.
SAFETY-RELATED COMP.
N/R N/R 2
i 5.
SUPPORT SYSTEMS N/R 2
N/R j
(FIRE PROTECTION) l l
6.
ELECTRICAL POWER 2
2 2
SUPPLY AND l
DISTRIBUTION j
7.
INSTRUMENTATION &
2 2
2 CONTROL SYSTEMS i
8.
LICENSING ACTIVITIES 2
2 N/R l
l 9.
QUALI.TY ASSURANCE 1
1 2
l PROGRAM N/R = NOT RATED SLIDE 9
4 CATAWBA 1 & 2 SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE PREOPERATIONAL/
OPERATIONS JUNE 1982-MAY 1983-MARCH 1984-APRIL 1983 FEB.
1984 SEPT.
1985 FUNCTIONAL AREAS CATEGORY CATEGORY CATEGORY 1.
PLANT OPERATIONS N/R 2
2.
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS N/R 2
3.
MAINTENANCE N/R 2
4.
SURVEILLANCE N/R 2
5.
FIRE PROTECTION N/R 1
6.
2 7.
SECURITY '
N/R 1
i 8.
QUA.LITY PROGRAMS AND 3
2 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS AFFECTING QUALITY 9.
LICENSING ACTIVITIES N/R 2
PROGRAM 10.
TRAINING N/R 2
11.
OPERATOR LICENSING S
N/R 12.
PREOPERATIONAL AND 2
2 STARTUP TESTING SLIDE 9A ;'
b kkkkNkkkkkkkkkkk&,
9/35
/
Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips j
g/
g TRA?EtEITAL 10:
'G j
IC g'
(
AD/Atm QPY 10: /
/
The Public Document Bocm E
f cc: C&R w/attachs.
p FIO1:
SECY OPS BRA?Of (w/o SECY i;
~
papers)
{
e Attached are copies of a amnission meeting transcript (s) and related meeting docunent(s). They are MD.g forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List f
and placement in the Public Document Bocm. tb other distribution is requested
[
or required. Dcisting DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual j
- p
, documents wherever known.
F y
g dieeting
Title:
i t c_%SW Mo 1s'th\\d D oke. on hd 9ee#~
{
i h
bwa.4. a L<iu em&,mo w z 9
L 3
f h
Meeting Date: 5 l4 E(o Open,X Closed
{
=>l
}
Sl DCS Copies f
(1 of each checked)
I Item
Description:
Copies g:
Advanced Original May Duplicatee To PDR Document be Dup
- Conv*
6, c
Sl 1.
TRA!ECRIPT 1
1 k
h hhen checked, DCS sinuld send a copy of this transcript to the
- B LPDR for:
L3 U t w L3chca.mhi
=s 3
s
==H 2*
=5l
- 9 I
M=5 b
5' 3
e G
e 3
c h
4-c I
C a
E
~
e J
[l
%g
~
Change to "PDR Available."
tm of each SEEY paper.)
- i i-o