ML20199D508
| ML20199D508 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8606200362 | |
| Download: ML20199D508 (134) | |
Text
-
e-
/ /h
-wg
~
1, (
~0RIGINAL
.o,,,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
.',.W@ 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
, m
. - - g"' n 2i m
+
.p.3ti w:3
, -A. .A q-
,, , . .. , ..w + .. Mo'n s
- s. ,
, ,s . . .. .
a ,, , . y 3.- , . m .~.m. .- .x gg, ~ . , ,g,,lup g ,
,~ sv . . ... 3 t .
+
? "# '
i
'n" -
.,s !MS%
~
In the matter of: ,
-Te .. '.. ..
y;.~ w' !.nQf we
. .y - .
.k. .
COMMISSION MEETING f 7;. . f. .. 'Mg;,}rt
.. k,.d4 ,a
- 9
+*$,rg,4d-
, s 3 Briefing on Restart 1
~'
' +
.TM . m on San Onofre-1 ;
. + . W > ;.*y @y.ct',0 :c
... . p.,m
' c
. - ,, , ~ .
m
>c.s wf;:4 ' *
(Public Meeting) -3 , .w . . . ,
.e s: , ..
< , v, . 47.-v .p n r
's . ,* .'*. ., . . ):$.' . . f,! . , +.
- l, =4rS.W W
^
' g[ f
- h. , , _
+++,,.
.. ~<
- m. .n. +.pr.or
,..s ..
a
- J;. <
st, * ~. . ,. ,
.e - = w, . , a; e tf,: ,
.,-).., . , , w% ,-.f. 7,
.. .< v.;,
+ .
lt ; ,'
,r? ;,J y;g,? t.
~
.v g . ' a. :: . , . ~ . .. Docket No.
.s .. , .. ..n. .,=
4.w. .-a, . . p . .y u.
' 'er.,.. % : V . s g .vn. .:
. e.. ,v,
. . c. ~ ,, .
~ .
5,. ,e i s ;'S-
-[,'.
',Nn# j ,4i ,# ' '
.'e .' t - l PS * } [ h-5 7
' ^
-m. .l l , Q r, tt.t l; y ,- , b,;p a
'.v. ;;,. >
- a ;- ::;,
m 3 , , , , ,..
, . ,, .; ..g g,,.
3 .y , . .v,-+ . ;. .,;.
,. 3 !5: ye t
,..e.. -: s . s,
, ~,,; ,n. a, ,pg .
a,g pg
,3. n . n . . . .
..: , i ., , , , ,
+ >-
,- ~
~.. .: , ;
s
+ ,; e.dem u
gw
,,,,.. *1 ,v '
/* - ,
- ; ? .,. .
t ) f ; ,< }?,3 * **pg
- d. ;- ;*
- i ,
. s, c ,' ? )., .A w.r '. m r'
.w .; .- . :.c w -
- m. . e .. , . . , .
...e
,v a%< es
. t. .
..'~,# .
~
,._ y.
, , ~
., h.. i; p ., . ,* ; ,. ,, '
V.,u,l'p'. .Q's
- t :, v.: ..
- -(
7 . ,
...,.,2,..-
r g ;~ a,,
w, ; ~.~ , . . ,., s . r s
. s
.e. ., :
,, x
,t. ,
c, .~ ,.:,: . ;-y-i:qa y.
3+w q u y.- :.m , n :v.:c
.eg,,
s.
~
. 4 ,, ,
- -; ;, aggy e,.
.s . v ,. , ..,
- s. m
-.t....m.m 4, n
,. . ~
.3,.
... e, e, .A.n. w; m >9.;e ,g s. sR ; -g uw 1 Q.
,- *h .
+
i
" [ ',,
[ "a a ,[ .)d, . i'.d.
4 < , .s..,,w,, m ,
e
:knij( -y o.:.
T .
.,-' eno e4nq.y) q
.. .y
,. s 7.p - '.p,-a
, . . .N .
w
, ,2 Location: Washington, D. C. 4 l - "f,j Date: Thursday, June 12, 1986 Pages: 1 - 95 "f -
.'.k.
,y .
0606200362 860612 - 3' PDR
'W 10CFR '
PT9.7 PDR -
..v _. $ '
w e
.v a
.f43
'es ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES ,.
Court Reporters -
. J.a4
~1625 I St., N.W. ,
fg
.. . Suite 921 . i Washington, D.C. 20006
- Ef (202) 293-3950 .
, . . < M..,
3
- 4 d T' ,. , r 'Ib
. , 4,; p.1
" 'nidd
+
1 D i SCLA I MER S
4 5
6 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7 United States Nuclear Regu l a t ory Cormn i ss i on he l d on a 6/12/86 .. In the Commission's office at 1717 H street, 9 N.W.. Washington. D.C. The meeting was open to pubIic
. 10 attendance and observation. This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or ed,ited, and It'may contain 12 Inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 Informatlonal purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part'of the' formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No 18 pleading or other paper may be fiIed 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
m-o ,
1
_ .1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ---
4 BRIEFING ON RESTART OF SAN ONOFRE-1 5 ---
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7 ---
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9- Room 1130 10 '
1717 "H" Street, N.W.
11 Washington, D.C.
12 ~
(~ 13 Thursday, June 12, 1986 14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 2:08 o' clock p.m., NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, Chairman of 17 the Commission, presiding.
18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
19 NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 20 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 21 JAMES X. ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission 22 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 23 LANDO W. ZECH, JR., Member of the Commission 24 25 - --
T
. 2 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
2 S. CHILK 3 M. MALSCH 4 D. FOGERTY 5 K. ,BASKIN 6 M. MEDFORD 7 J. RAINSBERRY 8 V. STELLO 9 J. MARTIN 10 E. MERSCHOFF 11 R. DUDLEY J. MILHOAN 12
(.
14 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
15 T. QUAY -
l 16 17 l
18 19 20 21 22 -
23 24
~
25 . --
l
_f 3
-1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRMAN PALIADINO: Good afternoon, ladies and 3 gentlemen. Commissioner Bernthal has been delayed but I 4 expect that he will be joining. us shortly. I have also been 5 informed that the staff van is being delayed because of a 6 hold-up by an accident that does not involve them but involves 7 somebody else but they should be here within 20 minutes I am 8 told. I am going to suggest that we proceed.
9 This afternoon, the Commission will be briefed by 10 representatives of Southern California Edison and by the NRC 11 staff on action'taken in preparation for and in support of a 12 request for an NRC approval to restart San' onofra Unit 1 13 Nuclear Plant which is currently shut down.
(
14 On November 21, 1985 San Onofre Unit 1 experienced a f
15 total loss of all in-plant AC power as well as a severe 16 incidence of water hammer in the feedwater system which caused 17 damaged plant equipment and challenged the integrity of the 18 plant's heat sink.
19 Although there were other malfunctions and human 20 errors, plant operators were successful in bringing the plant 21 to a safe shut down and in preventing any~ abnormal releases or 22 radioactivity.
23 Nevertheless, I must say that I was greatly dismayed 24 while reading through the incident invastigation team report, 25 NUREG-1190, f.o learn of the many plant deficiencies, - - -
0
..-~,-,-..e-.,,,----_,e,- ww-vr--.,.,-,,--w--,,,- ww w ,, -,- - , , - - _ , - ,-- , , , . , w e. - e----,,-.m,--mm.-~,,
r o 4 1 procedural shortcomings and apparent poor licensee approach 2 towards root cause identification disclosed by the 3 investigation of the event and I look forward to hearing on 4 corrective action that has been taken.
5 On January 22, 1986, the Commission heard the 6 incident investigation team's description of the event and the 7 principal findings and conclusions. On March 18, 1986, the 8 Commission heard SCE's evaluation of the event as well as the 9 proposed corrective actions.
10 Today we will hear from both the licensed and the 11 staff. I understand the licensee will make a presentation that will involve about 20 minutes without interruption,
~
12
(') 13 followed by a presentation by the staff that is estimated to 14 last 45 minutes without interruption. That is going to give 15 us a challenge. -
16 (Laughter.)
- 17 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: .Not interrupting?
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Not interrupting, yes, but 19 sometimes it is better if we ask our questions along the way.
20 MR. BASKIN: That's fine, Mr. Chairman.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I would like the SCE 22 representatives to remain with us this afternoon following the 23 presentation because there may be additional questions after 24 the staff presentation.
25 I understand that copies of today's agenda and the - -
f O
I .
, 5 1 SCE and staff briefing slides are available on the table in 2 the back of the room. I also understand that representatives 3 from Region V as well as the resident inspector at the plant 4 will be listening in over the telephone but we won't be able 5 to ask them any questions as far as I understand.
6 Let me ask if any of my fellow Commissioners have 7 any additional opening remarks?
8 (No response.)
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Then I will turn the meeting 10 over to Mr. David Fogerty, executive vice president of 11 Southern' California Edison Company.
~
12 (SLIDE.)
13 MR. FOGERTY:
{ Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 14 am joined here today by Ken Baskin, Mark Medford and also 15 representatives from San Diego Gas and Electric, Steve Olhaan 16 and Jack Rainsberry, our licensing superintendent.
17 We would like to cover for you our evaluation of the 18 November event. First of all, the water hammer event was very 19 significant.
20 (SLIDE. )
21 MR. FOGERTY: We indicated this to you in our March 22 meeting that we considered this a major significance. We have 23 emphasized this to all of our people and we will continue to 24 emphasize this. We have marshalled all the necessary 25 resources to investigate and correct this problem. - - --
. 6 1 We have implemented major plant improvements and .
2 Mark Medford will review these in detail. We have implemented 3 programmatic changes to enhance our operations. Our 4 procedures have been updated. Our training has been enhanced 5 and the material review program has verified that the plant is 6 in the condition that we expect it to be.
7 We are very pleased to have the opportunity to 8 review this with you and as a result of our review we believe e
9 we have been first of all responsive to the IIT report and 10 that with the material condition of the plant and other 11 changes we have made, we have a plant that is much safer and 12 more reliable than it was prior to the tide of the event last
/' 13 November.
14 In addition, I have one other item I want to touch 15 on. At our last meeting we had indicated, I think, in 16 response to a question by Commissioner Asselstine that we 17 would carry this message to others in the industry and to 18 date, we have discussed our findings with both thra 19 Westinghouse and the CE owner groups.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Great.
21 MR. FOGERTY: We have presentations scheduled with 22 ANS and AIF meetings. We have had discussions with INPO and 23 we have also presented this material to the Nuclear Services 24 Conference. This is to get this material ple.nt condition 25 program that we have evolved out to our peers in the industry
r 1
, 7 1 and we think that has been a very important thing and it is 2 underway and we have completed part of it and have more to go.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Does that include the check 4 valve story, also?
5 MR. FOGERTY: Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: As well as water hammer?
7 MR. FOGERTY: Water hammer and several other things 8 that we will touch on today principally electrical testing of 9 cables and a number of things that we found that we really 10 believe are generic and not just to nuclear plants --
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Right.
12 MR. FOGERTY:
-- to all fossil pl' ant operations as
(' 13 well as nuclear. I would like to turn this session over to 14 Mr. Baskin now.
15 MR. BASKIN: Thank you, Dave..
16- (SLIDE.)
17 MR. BASKIN: On your right, we have the slides 18 which we will be showing which are identical to what you have 19 in your handout there. The agenda shown and I need not dwell 20 on it, I am going to give a little brief introduction. Mark 21 is going to talk about the ovorall outage overview and the 22 specific corrections and actions taken as a result of the 23 water hammer incident and then as time permits, I will kind of 24 sum up what we have said in a very brief fashion.
25 (SLIDE.) ' ' ~
.-,_,,_.,,_,__._7-,.,,,__,__,,,,-_,._mm-,,____._m.... . . , _ - . . . _ , , _ __ - . , _ , _ . . _ _ , . _ _ . - - __
. . 8 1 MR. BASKIN: .As far as a little introduction, in the -
2 outage that San onofre is in, we are' involved in many activities in addition to the corrections relating to water 3
4 hammer. We are working -- we have worked on and are working on seismic backfit, Appendix R, environmental qualification.
5 6 Mark is going to talk about this just to give you a feel a 7 little bit for some of the outage work.
i 8 We have major capital work going on. We have l 9 processed over 3,500 maintena'nce orders, made almost 300 10 design changes, had about 600,000 craft man hours just for 11 design change work not for maintenance work. .
s 12 As Dave indicated, we certainly considered and
~
{ 13 continue to consider the water hammer event very, very l
14 significant and we believe we have been fully responsive to
, 15 the IIT findings. '
16 The causes of the event have been identified and 1
17 corrected. Just to refresh your memory, there were basically
! 18 two root causes as we talked last time. The check valve 19 failure which was brought about by the check valves being i
- 20 located in a turbulent flow regime by inappropriate 21 application in terms of sizing of the valves and by a less 22 than optimum valve construction for the particular service and l 23 then there was the electrical cable failure, the other root 24 cause, which was caused by overheating of the electrical 25 cable. - - --
- . . - - .---,,.,--,,.,,.--,.-,,,,--.-,.-.,-_,-----_,.m.,-n,,,,,.,n,.. . , , . , , - - - - , _.-,n,. ,,,-,.,.,,,,--,,,.,,--,,nm e-
r
~. .
9 .
1 And finally, the material condition review program 2 that we discussed last time has been implemented, the 3 program. We have got good results and we will touch on those 4 briefly as we go through.
5 So if there are no questions, I will ask Mark to 6- spend a little more detail on each of these things.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are you going to cover fire 8 protection?
9 MR. BASKIN: Yes.
10 (SLIDE. )
11 MR. MEDFORD': Before we get into the details of the
~
12 water hammer event and our corrective actions for that, I
(
13 would lika to put those actions in perspective for you by 14 describing first the outage that we have gone through and the 15 overall activities. '
16 The first item on this slide are the activities 17 related to the wa.or hammer itself and I won't dwell on that 18 because I will b touching on that in more detail as we go 19 along.
20 The second item is fire protection. During this 21 outage we have installed a dedicated diesel generator, that is 22 it is a diesel generator dedicated to* fire protection 23 purposes. We have also installed a third auxiliary feedwater 24 pump. That feed pump is essentially a third train of aux feed 25 for the plant. - - --
1 10 1 I say, " essentially" only because it is the 2 electrical portion of the pump is not safety related at this 3 -time. It will be made safety related at the next refueling 1
4 outage. However, from a functional standpoint the third l 5 auxiliary feed pump ~is essentially a third train.
6 In addition to those two major modifications on fire 7 protection, we have installed additional detection and i
8 . suppression equipment for. fire protection.
9 With those modifications, these complete the 10 backfits for Appendix R on San Onofre Unit 1.
+
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So you will be in full
~
, 12 compliance for you restart?
13 -
MR. MEDFORD:
{~ Let me give a slightly qualified i 14 answer to that.
15 (At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner 16 Bernthal entered the meeting.)
17 MR. MEDFORD: We have got a few relatively small 18 exemption requests before the staff right now. My 19 understanding is that the staff is going to act favorably on 20 those. So when we come out of the outage, we will be in full 21 legal compliance with Appendix R. It will have those few 22 exemptions.
l 23 l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That is on the basis that the 24 exemptions would be approved?
l 25 MR. MEDFORD: That is correct. - -
. 11 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Were the diesel and the 3 aux feed pump basically driven by the separation requirements, l 4 just couldn't meet the separation requirements, with the 5 existing configuration?
6 MR. MEDFORD: Yes, that is correct. With the 4
7 existing configuration of unit 1, we decided that it was
~
8 better to go to a dedicated safe shut down system rather than -
9 to try to provide adequate separation with the basic design of 10 the plant.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: What kind of remote
~
12 shutdown capability do you have in terms of remote shut down 13
( }, system in the event that you had a fire in the contro1 room?
14 MR. MEDFORD: Actually as it' turns out, with the 15 dedicated safe shutdown system, it is' easier to provide for 16 a full remote shutdown capability.* We can go to a remote 17 panel in the event of a fire in the control room and safely 18 shut down the plant. -
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
20 MR. MEDFORD: We move next to environmental 21 qualification. During this outage, we have either upgraded or 22 replaced 90 components. With these modifications, we have 23 achieved full implementation of environmental qualification on 24 unit 1.
! 25 Next slide, please. -~
9 s ,v --me-w-.--- r-.. * , - -...--,,-w-.. -~m -n-,.., ----,,m---w----,----- -w--,,,,, nme--------,--,..n-,,,a-,-----,,--.-wa-,e. --,-, ~ --. _-- -...-
.- 12 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Maybe this is a question for 1 2 the staff or maybe you could answer it along the way. Have 3 these items been inspected by the staff or presumably will 4 they be inspected by the staff?
- 5 MR. MEDFORD
- Yes, they have. We had a fire 6 protection audit in May and we had an environmental
-7 qualification audit in September and, of course, that didn't 8 include the most recent modifications.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I will ask the staff.
I 10 (SLIDE. )
~
11 MR. MEDFORD: The first bullet on this next slide
~
12 deals with the seismic upgrading of San onofra Unit 1 from 13 - .5g to .67 g. It gives me a great deal of personal pleasure 14 to say that that program is complete. It has been a 15 comprehensive program and involved an' extensive amount of i 16 activities and it is complete. The staff has done a thorough 17 review of that and I am confident that they will agree that it l 18 is complete.
19 The final bullet on the major outage activities is 20 the diesel generators. As many of you know, we have 21 TransAmerica Delaval diesel generators on unit 1. We have 22 been a member of the TDI owners group since its inception.
23 During this outage we have entered into a number of l 24 tear downs and inspections associated with the TDI owners i -
25 group recommendations. Just to give you an indication of the -
I
.. ,+m ,-----,,,,,_y-,,m-.-,-,--. .----vr-.--. - . - - - , , , ,w-.-,-.e-.mm,m,--,,.,,,m.--v r--m-----..-,.--- ,,,--r-~y y - - , -
, 13 1 magnitude of this activity, we have expended about 480 2 man-months of effort on the diesel generators during this 3 outage alone.
4 I would like to mention a couple of other items that 5 are not shown on these slides. During this outage we have 6 been working with the staff both on control room HVAC and on 7 the post accident sampling system. The post accident sampling
- 8 system as you know is a post TMI requirement and following the 9 startup testing associated with this outage, the post accident 10 sampling system will be completely operational on unit 1.
11 Next slide, please.
d
~
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Before you leave this one,
( 13 on the seismic upgrade program, in terms of the work that you 14 did from January of 1985 to the present, how would you j 15 characterize it in terms of amounts of modifications that you a
i 16 had to make to the plant as compared to a re-analysis to 17 justify the adequacy of what was already there?
i 18 MR. MEDFORD: Well, certainly there was a good l
19 measure of both but it is not analysis alone. Let me assure i
20 you of that. We have made a substantial number of 21 modifications during this outage. To give you a quantitative t
22 measure, we have probably spent on the order of $40 million 23 dollars in the field during that period.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right, and on the 25 diesels, what kind of reliability rates had you historically -
. 14 !
. 1 achieved with your TDI's?
2 MR. MEDFORD: I don't remember the numbers but they 3 had performed very well for us.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
5 MR. MEDFORD: We had not had some of the problems 6 that other people with TDI diesels had experienced.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The new diesel you put in, 8 is that a TDI or is a diverse --
9 MR. MEDFORD: It is not TDI. I don't remember the 10 vendor though.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right. So redundancy
~
12 , as well as well as diversity.
13
( MR. MEDFORD: That is correct.
14 (SLIDE. )
15 MR. MEDFORD: All right. On'this slide we have 16 listed the major event related issues and this is primarily to
- 17 refresh your memory from the March meeting. There is nothing 18 different here than what we talked about before. I divided 19 those into two areas, the feedwater system and the electrical 20 system.
21 The primary design failure where the feedwater 22 system is concerned is the pre-existing failure of five 1 23 feedwater system check valves. I will discuss -- by the way, 24 I would like not to get into the corrective actions for these 25 because I will be talking about corrective actions on'a ' -~
1 .
i .
i
. .. 15 1 sepanete slide. -
2 We attributed the failure to three factors. They 3 were, first, that the valves were over-sized for their 4 application; second, that there were sources of turbulence 5 near the valves; and third, that the basic design of the 6 valves was somewhat fragile given the nature of the 7 application.
8 The second failure I mentioned under the feedwater 9 system is a programmatic issue. It is related to the failure 10 of the check valves and basically it is that in June of last 11 year, 1985, we heard a noise in the B feedwater train. We now 12 know that that noise was associated with ihe failure of the B
( 13 feed line check valve.
14 The noise was given good attention at the time.
15 Unfortunately, the focus of the work that we did in analysing 16 this noise was not appropriate. We now recognize that we
- 17 screwed up there and that we missed an opportunity to head off 18 this event. Again, I will talk later about the corrective 19 actions for that. -
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you know what you would have 21 done? I don't want to interrupt your presentation, but how 22 you would have used the noise had you done it the way you 23 think you ought to have done it?
24 MR. MEDFORD One thing that we failed to do is to 25 adequately review the maintenance history for the feed line - -
4
, . 16 1 check valve. Unfortunately, the noise appeared to be coming 2 from a nearby block valve and our attention focused on that
- 3 block valve. So one thing is we would.have taken a little bit 4 broader look. .
5 secondly, we did consider the possibility of failure 6 of the check valve and dismissed it. Again, in hindsight, we 7 should have gone back and made better use of the maintenance
- a history on that valve.
9 MR. FOGERTY: And, Mr. Chairman, we should have shut 10 down and repaired the valve -- inspected it and repaired it 11 clearly at that time.
l 12 CHAIRMAN PALIADINO: Yes. I gues's that is the way
- i. .
13 you really would have found out.
1(
3 14 MR. FOGERTY: Yes. We should have opened that valve t
15 and the adjacent valves up until we found the problem and made 16 the repairs. '
17 MR. MEDFORD: Under the electrical system, the major
{
1 j
18 design related failure was failure of the cabling that runs 19 from the aux C transformer to one of the buses that it 20 supplies.
21 The failure of the cable was the result of a nearby 22 uninsulated flange which resulted in over heating of the j 23 cabling. Again, I will talk later about the corrective action
, 24 for that.
- 2. The second design re1sted issue I have 11 seed under.
. 17 1 the electrical system deals with what is called the loss of 2 voltage automatic transfer sequencer which is a sequencer 3 designed to facilitate the operator's efforts in lining up to 4 the second source of off site power.
5 During this event, that sequencer failed to complete ,
6 its sequence.
7 The third item is that the ground was not isolated 8 as quickly as we think now that it should have been. The 9 operators were being diligent in pursuit of the ground, 10 identification of the ground and isolation of the ground 11 although we don't think that they had the appropriate sense of
~
12 urgency in doing that.
13 I will talk later about the corrective actions for
(
14 that.
15 (SLIDE.) '
16 MR. MEDFORD Turning to the next slide, the 17 remainder of my talk will address corrective actions and I 18 will divide that into two sections, one related to design 19 changes and the other to the programmatic changes.
20 (SLIDE. )
21 MR. MEDFORD: Going to the next slide, starting with 22 page nine and going through page 11, the next three slides are 23 slides which we showed you in the March meeting. There has 24 been one change however and that is, we have added a check 25 mark where an item has been completed as we sit here today. -
4
, .. 18 1 Let me point out because we used the same slides f 2 that we used from last time, there is an asterisk on the right 3 hand side of many of these items and it says, " complete prior 4 to startup."
5 Well, the check mark overrules that. The check mark 6 . means it has been completed as we sit here today.
7 The first ites on this slide is that we are 8 installing valves of a different. The last time we talked, we 9 had not defined the test program for these valves and the 10 Commission demo'strated n a substantial interest in that area.
- 11 Shortly after the meeting, we determined that we 12 were going to do a test program at Utah st' ate. We did that.
13 We simulated the configuration that each of the failed valves
(
14 is in and also the new valves that we~are putting in the 15 plant. We think the test program demonstrated that these 16 valves would function as we had said they would based on l
17 analytical results.
i-18 We are going to build on that test program in the l!
19 startup testing which will be performed on the plant and in
- 20 the periodic testing which will be performed on the valves as 21 we go through operation.
j 22 The second item is a backup to the feed line check j 23 valves. It provides for. automatic closure of the nearby flow 24 control valves. In addition, as we mentioned last time we
~
25 have added redundant feed line check valves which are well - -
---,,v,--.nv , -mm-o., --m----m ,,-s ,,.m,ne_,--,,,~g, , , , - _ . , , , , - . _ _ ,n,--y w-,--,-,-n, -w-.~,-w-w w~.,-,-m-m-w,n--,. w-,w, .,w-.
, 19 1 removed from the fail valves and in an area of low turbulence. !
2 (SLIDE.)
3 MR. MEDFORD: Turning to page ten, this slide 4 addresses the electrical system modifications.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You said there were three 6 faults on the check valves you.got out of the turbulence 7 area. How did you address the three causes?
8 MR. MEDFORD: All right. One cause was turbulence 9 and we addressed that in two different ways. One was by 10 installing the redundant valves which are well removed from 11 turbulence.
12 For the feed line check valves, de couldn't 13 completely remove them from turbulence but we moved them
( <
14 further away than they had been before.
15 We mentioned that the previous vsives were oversized 16 for their application. The new valves have orifices 17 appropriately sized. We mentioned that_the design of the 18 valve itself and specifically, the disk, was not appropriate 19 on the old valves.
20- The new valves, and I don't havs pictures today, but ,
21 we showed pictures last time which showed the more substantial 22 nature of the disk on the new valves.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINd: And you are satisfied you have 24 improved the design.
25 MR. MEDFORD: That'is correct. - -
4 -
4
=
-' - -w
20 l i
-1 CHAIRMAN PALIADINO: Have you tested them?
2 MR. MEDFORD: Yes. These are the valves that we 3 tested at Utah State. We went to Utah State because number 4 one, they have a test loop and number two, they have experts 5 in this area. They, by the way, will be involved in our 6 startup test program. We are bringing one of those people to 7 the site to participate in startup testing of these valves in 8 the plant.
4 9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Mark, have you modified 10 your in-service testing program for check valves?
11 MR. MEDFORD: Yes, we have. First of all, we are 12 going to ensure that on a greater frequenc'y during the course
{
, 13 of the refueling cycle we do in the in-service testing of the 14 valves.
15 secondly, we now require along these valves at the 16 next refueling outage, we are going to look at both of the 1
i 17 pump discharge check valves, open them up and look at the I
l 18 internals and we are going to look at at least one of each 19 application of the other valves, both the redundant valves and 20 the feed line check valves.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
22 MR. MEDFORD: Page ten shows the electrical system 23 modifications. First, we replaced all of the cabling between 24 the transformers and the bus they supply. I will talk later 25 about a cable monitoring task force that we have put togethet~
. _ . . _ . , . -._ . ._ - - ~=----,-----*'C*
- " - - ' - - ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' - " " ' - ' * * " " ' ' ' - ^^
21
, e i 1 that goes well beyond just this cabling.
2 In addition, we conducted a review of the cabling in 3 the plant to identify potential heat sources of the type that 4 cause the failure here. We have relocated some cables and in 5 addition, we have eliminated heat sources by providing 6 insulation for uninsulated components.
7 Third, I mentioned earlier the sequencer problem 8 that we experienced during the event. This third item goes to 9
correcting that. The sequencer was unable to complete its f
- lo sequence because this generator overspeed trip overrode it.
4 11 We still allow the generator overspeed trip to complete its
~
12 function but we have done it in such a way as to not override
( 13 the loss of voltage, automatic transfer sequencer.
I 14 Now you will note that the first three items on this 15 page have been completed. This next item I will talk about is 16 the only one I will talk about today that has not been 17 completed as of today and that is that we are going to provide 18 a second immediate access source of offsite power.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That is not going to be done l
i 20 before startup?
21 MR. MEDFORD: It will not. We are right now 22 starting our studies to identify exactly what we would do in 23 that area and we are confident that we will have completed 24 those studies and be able to implement the modification at the
't' . -
~
25 next refueling outage. - - -
4 4
- - -*w-- rr,-,e - -
22
= 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:- Mark, it seems fair to
- 2 ask. We had this problem with the cable which indicates that 3 material may deteriorate below what we expected it to for a 4 variety of reasons, one being exposure to heat. 70 what 5 extent did you look beyond just the cabling to say, "Well, are 6 there other areas that may have been effected by the same 7 thing?" Is that the area monitoring program where that really 8 comes in?
l 9 MR. MEDFORD: Initially, the material condition 10 review program which is the one-time look --
, 11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: all right, good.
12 -- and the area mon'itoring program is MR. MEDFORD: ,
'( 13 to maintain that same level. ,
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right. I know you I
l 15 wanted to talk about that later.
16 (SLIDE. )
~
17 MR. MEDFORD: On page 11 in the interest of time I 18 would like not to go over these individually. Let me mention 19 that these are modifi:ations that are outside the feed system 20 and outside the electrical system. Again, these were items 21 which were mentioned last time. All of them will be completed 22 -- excuse me, all of them have been completed.
23 (SLIDE.)
24 MR. MEDFORD: Turning to page 12, this slide 25 identifies modifications that we had not identifi'ed when we - ~
L
. . 23 1 talked to you last time. The first modification is one which 2 will give the operator more flexibility in choosing between ,
3 onsite and offsite power.
4 That is a modification. That acronym there again is 5 the Loss Of Voltage Automatic Transfer Sequencer.
6 The second item, one of the four vital buses on unit 7 1 did not have an uninterruptable power supply. That was a 8 source of problem during the event and we decided that it 9 would be appropriate to provide a UPS for vital bus number 10 four and we have done that.
11 In addition, the third bullet on this page addresses
~
12 a new alarm we have added and that is a 4-KV buses paralleled
.( 13 alarm. It is our intention to minimize paralleled bus 14 operation and to heighten the operator's awareness when he 15 does have two buses parallel, we have'added this alarm.
16 (SLIDE. )
l 17 MR. MEDFORD: Turning to page 13, this and the next 18 three slides address changes which we have made in the 19 programmatic areas. This first slide addresses procedures and 20 training.
21 The first bullet on this slide observes the fact 22 that we learned a lot as a result of this event and one of the l
23 things we are going to do is to factor that knowledge into
! 24 both our procedures and training.
25 As an example, we now believe that we pl' aced und'e-u -
.. 24 1 stress in the area of instrument set points on the nominal 2 value for the set point. The operators would expect that when 3 they got to a nominal value, the instrument would take the 4 action indicated.
5 We are now stressing to them that there ip an 6 appropriate range which the instrument can be in and that they 7 shouldn't be surpr'ised when they encounter that in the plant.
8 The second bullet on this page addresses the fact 9 that we are improving the guidance we give the operator 10 concerning ground isolation and one area where we have done 11 that is to provide a hierarchy in our procedures that-the 12 operators would follow in searching out a' fault. '
( 13 The third item on this page addresses the use of the 14 NRC red phone during this event. Frankly, the quality of the 15 communication that took place there is not what we would like 16 it to be.
I 17 one of the things we have done to try to improve 18 that is to stress the importance of formality during such 19 communications. In addition, we have tried to school the-20 operatoys and have schooled the operators in a little bit of 21 ccumunications theory about for example, when an individual 22 r.sks a question and you don't know the answer to it, don't
> 23 speculate or if you do speculate, you have to speculate 24 clearly identified that that is what it is.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Mark, on that~second ' -~
l l
25 1 bullet, do you expect the new guidance to substantially reduce 2 the time that it took in this case to identify and correct the 3 grounds?
I 4 MR. MEDFORD: Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Did you indicate the red phone 6 was giving you communication trouble aside from what the 7 people were saying?
8 MR. MEDFORD: There were two problems associated 9 with the red phone. One is and that was one of the other 10 modifications I didn't dwell on, but one of the problems was l
11 that the red phone rung spuriously on both ends which meant
~
12 that the communication got off to a funny start because people 13
{ on either end thought the other had called them.
14 The operators wondered how the people at the NRC 15 knew that they had an incident two minutes ago but they didn't 16 h' ave any information to report. The people at the NRC, of 17 course, they pick up a phone and this guy on the other end is 18 not ready to talk to them. So the whole thing got off to a 19 bad start. That was a design related problem.
20 Beyond that, we think there is improvement that we 21 can make in the quality of communication that goes on between 22 our folks and the NRC.
23 COMMISSIONER ZECH: How about the communications 24 between your own people? Are you making them more formal, 25 too, and if so, in what regard? * ' ~~
- - , - - - , - ,---,,-y, ,y ,c.-, --,-m --- - - - - - -- , -w--. -, ,,. ..--..- ,,-~ -..-m - -- ,._ - - - - _ - - _ --_ _ _ _ - - - - - -
l 26 l 1 MR. MEDFORD: As far as the event related 2 communications, I think there was good formality there. I 3 think one of the reasons for the good team work exhibited 4 between the STA and the control room staff is that their 4
5 communications were sound and were formal.
6 Being a little bit broader in the view of that, as I 7 mentioned, one of the things wa are concerned about is this 8 lack of a sense of urgency in searching out the ground and so 9 if you take it and consider the non purely emergency related 10 aspect of this, then the answer is yes.
i 11 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Regarding communications, do
~
12 they repeat back the orders? Do you go to that extent or not?
13 MR. MEDFORD: I don't know. Yes, they do.
. {^
f 14 MR. BASKIN: It-varies. There is no requirement i
15 'spe'ifically c to do that in each and e ery case. There are 16 situations when they are working on particularly difficult 17 things where they do and there are situations where they 18 don't.
19 ER. FOGERTY: But generally in-the electrical area 20 if you are dealing with someone outside the control room, they l
21 would repeat those back because it does involve the individual 22 safety so those are repeated back for clearance.
23 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Clearly, communications is 24 something that always needs constant attention but once you 1 ~
25 get a procedural of formal communications, it has'~been my' ~~
-.-+,,-,---,_,,..,y,. -- -
27 1 experience'that it serves you well and repeating back basic 2 important' communications even in a control room between your 3 operators is certainly something that enhances safety in my 4 regard.
5 I would suggest that even though you think that 6 communications are good, they probably could be better. You 7- might want to look and see how you can make them even more 8 formal. Taking an extra few seconds in the very important 9 communications in my judgment is worth it and sometimes can be 10 very significant towards making sure that the order is 11 understood and executed properly and everybody knows what they
~
12 are doing. So formal communications is very important.
t 13 MR. MEDFORD: We will make a note of that.
[
14 (SLIDE. )
i 15 MR. MEDFORD: Turning to page 14, this slide 16 addresses the programmatic aspect of personnel performance.
i 17 The top bullet really goes to what I talked about on the l
l 18 previous page on procedures and training in the electrical 19 area.
20 One of the things we are doing is increasing the 21 operator's experience in trouble-shooting and manipulation of i
22 plant electrical systems and Mr. Zech, you mentioned at the 23 last meeting that it was important that the operator get a I 24 hands-on knowledge for the electrical system.
25 l
COMMISSIONER ZECH: Right. --
i
_ _ _ . . ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ._____ _. __.._______ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ..____i
28 1 MR. MEDFORD: We have taken that to heart and that 2 is one of the things we have implemented.
3 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Good. ,
If it works, you might 4 vant to include it as a lessons learned or a good practice and 5 circulate it to other people.
I 6 MR. MEDFORD: Yes.
7 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Good.
8 MR. MEDFORD: This second bullet goes to the 9 effectiveness of the STA. One of the things we learned as a 10 result of this event is that too much of the STA's training 11 goes to the purely emergency situations.
12 The STA was involved in the groun'd search activities
.( 13 that occurred before the event initiated itself. But the 14 STA's training was not a tremendous asset to him because we 15 had placed this tremendous emphasis on emergency situations.
16 One of the things we are doing is to place greater 17 emphasis in the STA's training on abnormal but non-emergency 18 situations.
19 MR. BASKIN: Let me expand on that just a minute, 20 Mark, because I think this is a particularly important and 21 maybe interesting point of something that we learned that 22 let's say maybe we didn't expect to in that the STA's training 4
23 to some extent has been similar at least in the past to the 24 way we as an industry looked at. accidents, all the major 25 problems. - --
4
~
29 1 We really didn't concentrate much oh training him i
2 even though they are licensed operators in our case, on 3 training them for non-emergency but abnormal conditions and we i
4 saw here was a situation where he could have been of much more 5 -help had he had different and better training.
6 So we have instituted that throughout the site in 7 terms of providing this sort of training. We think it will be 8 a big plus.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: that is a good point and 10 that is another one where I think Lando has a good idea. That 11 is a message, I think, that could be of great benefit to other
~
12 utilities as-well b'cause a I suspect throughout the $ndustry
(' 13 the focus really is on we put the STA in to deal with the 14 serious accident situations and I bet'that the training 15 focuses pretty much on that throughout the industry.
16 MR. BASKIN: I am sure thht is right, yes.
(
17 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Good point and I agree. On the l
i 18 other. hand, I would hope that you would emphasize both the 19 emergency situations and the abnormal.
20 - MR. BASKIN: Yes.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I am sure you mean to do that f
22 but you shouldn't neglect the emergency.
l l
23 MR. BASKIN: No.
24 COMMISSIONER ZECH: You have to have that but in
(
25 addition, I commend you for focusing on the abnormal --
30 1 conditions and I agree with Commissioner Asselstine that it
- i 2 certainly.would be something that might be of value to 3 circulate to others, too, if your program proves effective 4 which it seems to me it certainly should.
5 MR. FOGERTY: Yes. Our intent is not to change or 6 diminish the emergency training at all but just to add this 7 abnormal training to it.
8 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Sounds good.
9 MR. MEDFORD: Moving to the third bullet on this 10 slide, I mentioned earlier the noise that we heard in the B 11 feed line in June and the fact that the failed to capitalize 12 on the information that that had for us.
(' 13 One of the changes we have implemented is to add a 14 member to our onsite safety review committee who is from 15 outside the company. This really has'two purposes. One is to 16 add an individual who has substantial operating experience so 17 that he can enrich the operating experience that the staff 18 already has.
l 19 In addition to that, it would bring in somebody who 20 has a fresh perspective on the activities on the site, 21 somebody who has no involvement whatsoever in the things that 22 he is reviewing.
23 We have selected an individual that we feel meets 24- those qualifications.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Will he be the only'non-SCE' ~~
o
31-1 individual on the oversight committee?
2 MR. MEDFORD: There is an SDGEE member but other 3 than that, he will~be the only non-SCE member, yes.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Who did you add?
5 MR. MEDFORD: Wes Hartle'g who is the vice president 6 with MAC and has substantial operating experience at a number 7 of other utilities.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good.
9 (SLIDE. )
10 MR. MEDFORD: Turning to page 15, this slide 11 summarizes very briefly the material condition review
~
12 program. I should mention the relationship between this slide (k 13 and the area monitoring program which is covered on the next 14 slide.
15 The material condition review program has been i
16 applied to San onofre Unit I with the intention of giving us a -
17 base line on the material condition of that plant and assuring 18 that it is up to the standards that we want to see. It is a 19 one time program. The intent of the area monitoring' program 20 which is an on-going program for the life of a plant is that 21 the area monitoring program would sustain the condition that I
22 we establish in the material condition review program.
23 The system sel,ected for the material condition 24 review program are those whose failure could lead to the i :- -
\
25 challenge of a safety system. I think it is important to' note'
32 i
'l that we have selected not just safety system but there are 2 also non-safety ralated systems as well.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good.
4 MR..MEDFORD: There are a total of 26 systems 5 involved.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: What is the mix between 7 safety and non-safety, so-called safety and non-safety related 8 systems?
9 MR. MEDFORD: It is roughly 50/50. I don't remember 10 the numbers.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That says a lot, I think.
~
12 MR..FOGERTY: Yes.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The importance of the 14 balance of plant.
15 MR. MEDFORD: The final bullet on this slide
. 16 summarizes --
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think that is important 18 because the balance of plant is where many incidents l .19 originate.
I 20 MR. FOGERTY: That is absolutely right.
l 21 MR. MEDFORD: I think that is another overriding 22 lesson of this event.
23 This final bullet summarizes the steps of the
- 24 program. First is material identification, identification not 25 only of the systems but the components within those syste'ms ~
l .
I
33 1 that would be scrutinized.
2 Secondly is team inspections. We have assembled 12 3 teams.- Their assignments are specific component areas. For !
4 example, one of the areas is cables. One of the areas is 5 valves. One of the areas is heat exchanges and there are nine 6 others like that.
7 Each team consists of a maintenance expert, an 8 apparatus expert, a representative of station technical 9 organization and where necessary an outside consultant.
10 Once these teams did their work, their work was 11 subjected to review by an evaluation panel. That evaluation
~
12 panel consisted of' senior managers from the Edison Company.
13 Let me give you a couple of examples of things that
(
14 came out of this. Probably one of the most interesting areas 15 was the cable task force area which again, this is one of'12.
16 - As a result of the cable task force's efforts, we have 17 identified approximately two miles of cabling that require l 18 replacement.
l 19 In addition, the cable task force has recommended l
j 20 that we perform high potential testing on a sampling of each 21 type of cable on varying frequencies depending on the 22 application.
23 To give you an idea of the scope of this program, 24 there is approximately 400 individual components that have
, 25 been assessed through the program itself. * * ~-
l i
- % w-.--,, --.,----..-e+-,,-w,,,, - - , - . - -y- --,9,#w-.-,---.-,e-, , -f. g w e &w e-m _e e- me g w e ewyp ye--w---*-----e-w-yv w.=wy-rw==y=m-=*M-==---+--,3--w-g-
l 34 1- COMMISSIONER ACCELSTINE: Before you leave that, 2 what did you find when you looked at motor operated valves, 3 any problems?
- 4 MR. MEDFORD: I don't remember the specifics for 4
5 . motor operated valves. As a result of check valve looks, we 6 did identify some valves which required inspection on a more 7- frequent basis. One thing I failed to mention, we did use 8 IPRDS substantially during this. We looked at the condition 9 of the plant but in looking at the condition of the plant, 10 even in some cases where a component would look good in our 11 service, we would look at how it is today and the maintenance
~
12 history it has in our plant and in some cases if NPRDS said (l 13 that specific type of valve can be a bad actor, we changed our 14 inspection frequency as a result of that.
, 15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Based upon this look, do j 16 you have a high sense of confidence that when the plant starts i
i 17 up again you wouldn't see multiple and simultaneous equipment 18 failures?
l 19 MR. MEDFORD: Yes.
I 20 .(SLIDE.)
21 MR. MEDFORD: Let me turn to the area monitoring 22 program and once again I want to emphasize --
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:- Let me ask you one other I - 24 question on valves. When you are complete and ready to start 25 up, will any of your valves in the plant be leaking when yos ~
I
- . ~ , , _ - . - - __ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ . . - . _ . , _ . _ , . _ .._%,_,.,_,,__,__,.,.,,.-.__,,,._,_.,,_____...-..,,,_...._____,~.r_,
._ _ .. ._._ . ._ .. . _ ._ _ . _ _ _ . ~ .__ __ ___.
,. 35 1~ start?
2 MR. MEDFORD: None of the valves will be leaking i
3 unacceptably and the reason I put that caveat on there is 4 check valves, in normal check valve testing and for that 5 matter other valve testing, you have acceptance criteria and 6 they are not all zero leakage criteria. The acceptance
~
i 7 criteria are consistent with what the valve requires to 8 perform its function.
! 9 Moving to the slide on the area monitoring program, 10 again the objective of this program is to maintain the high 11 material condition which we have assured ourselves of with the i
12 material condition review program. ~
l
[' 13 Once again, this program involves not only safety 14 but also non-safety related systems and in fact, it covers the i 15 entire plant. There are three --
16 COMMISSIONER ZECH: But still it means getting your i
17 supervisors out in the plant, does it not?
l 18 MR. MEDFORD: That is correct.
19 COMMISSIONER ZECH: That is what you are talking 20 about.
21 MR. MEDFORD: Right. The area monitoring program,-
22 the teams consist of teams of operations representatives, 23 maintenance representatives and station technical 24 representations.
25 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Right. - --
1
.. 36 1 -
MR. MEDFORD: The fdea is that they are assigned 2 areas,-there are 11 areas in the area monitoring program and a 3 team within a given area is intended to function that way.
4 That is, they would depend on each other to search out 5 problems.
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I appreciate that but as I 7 ' understand it, too, it means getting away from their paperwork i l
8 and getting out and finding out what is going on in the 9 plant. Is that right? ,
10 MR. MEDFORD: That is exactly right. ,
11 -
COMMISSIONER ZECH: That is an important initiative, 12 1 think, and again is something that ought to be emphasized in
(' 13 other plants, also.
- 14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
- Yes.
! 15 COMMISSIONER ZECH: You just'have to get your people 16 out and looking around more and it seems to me that is what 17 this area monitoring program essentially was all about.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Plus making them
{
19 accountable for the quality of the. equipment in the areas that 20 they are responsible for.
21 MR. MEDFORD: Yes.
I 22 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Sure. Getting out there and not 23 just looking, but doing something about it, recognizing their' 24 responsibilities, communicating with others and following 25 through and doing something about things that they se's b u't ~
l
. . . 37 1 getting out and more of a hands-on approach to your
. 2 supervisors and I think that is ,what your program was meant to 3 be. Is that correct?
4 MR. MEDFORD: That is correct.
5 MR. BASKIN: That is a part of it and i think what 6 Commissioner Asselstine said is equally as important, namely, 7 giving a small group of key people a sense that some portion 8 of the plant is theirs to look after on a day-to-day basis.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Right.
10 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Sure, the ownership concept.
1 11 MR. BA5 KIN: That's right.
~
12 COMMISSIONER ZECH: That is very important, too, and ,
( 13 it gives them a personal incentive and a personal feeling of 14 accomplishment and ownership and that is, I agree, that is a 15 very important part of the whole thing.
! 16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Ownership and competition.
17 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Sure.
18 MR. BASKIN: Yes.
19 MR. MEDFORD: Just one more thing on this slide and 20 that is I would like to point out this program is applicable 21 to units 2 and 3 as well as to unit 1.
22 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Excellent.
23 (SLIDE.)
24 MR. BASKIN: The last slide is kind of an overall 25 summary and I am not going to read that. You can read it'as" -
.- 38 l
1 well as I can certainly. Just I think two other comments I 2 would like to make, one having to deal with the startup from 3 this outage. In addition to everything we have talked about 4 in terms of the work we have done and the procedural and 5 program changes we have made, we are doing many things during 6 startup that are different and above and beyond what we would 7 normally do.
8 Let me just give you a couple of examples. There is 9 many what I call special interlock type items in the plant, a 10 simple example is on charging pumps where if one charging pump 11 discharge pressure decreases, the other one starts
~
12 automatically. '
()
13 Normally this sort of system is checked by inserting 14 essentially false instrument signals into the instrumentation 15 watching the other pump start. In this case, we are actually I
] 16 going to do things in this example to reduce the pressure to i
17 see that the other pump really does respond as we are l
18 expecting it.
19 Surveillance, all tech spec required surveillances 20 . will be done and completed prior to startup irrespective of 21 whether they were due this time, a year from now or two years 22 from now. We are going completely through the list and doing 23 them all.
24 We have done a complete surveillance of all fire 25 protection zones. One other example is the loss of power and-l
,, 39 1 the sequence of problem that Mark discussed. We will as a 2 part of the startup at zero power and at 25-percent power trip 3 the plant and verify that the r.evised scheme works as it 4 should be actually opening a breaker and watching the scheme 5 work.
6 There is no dummy signals being inserted in this.
7 It is going to be an actual test.
8 MR. FOGERTY: Two actual tests.
9 MR. BASKIN: Two actual tests, yes. I guess in 10 closing the only thing I would add is that as we have said 11 before and I would like to re-emphasize it, we recognize that 12 because of the age of San Onofre and becau'se of other reasons,
( 13 we have a special stewardship in terms of operating and 14 maintaining the plant. We recognize this obligation.
15 We will fulfill it and we have the full expectation 16 that when the unit returns to service this time, it will 17 operate safely and reliably for a long period of time in the 18 future.
19 With that, Mr. Chairman, that completes our 20 presentation.
21 (At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner 22 Roberts exited the Commission meeting.)
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you very much. I will 24 make a comment and then I would like to ask two questions. I
~
25 am pleased to see the actions you have taken and' assuming'that'
i l
40 l
.- i 1 the staff doesn't cast any doubt about it, I think these 2 actions seem to be certainly appropriate to covering both the t
3 avant -- or correcting the items that led to the event and 4 going a step further.
5 Two questions I have, I understand that unit 1 does 6 not have a redundant safety related control room heating, 7 ventilating and air conditioning system. I was interested in 8 what SCE's intentions and commitments for this particular item 9 might be.
10 MR. BASKIN: This is a subject that we have had 11 numerous discussions with the staff, many of them in the last 12 few days. We have agreed with the staff 6n specific interim
{-~
13 criteria that the system must meet for startup and we will be 14 able to do that and then we owe the staff within about a month
- 15 if I recall the date properly, but anyway within a short 16 period of time, discussions are ongoing in terms of agreeing 17 upon what.the long term modifications should be to satisfy i
i l 18 both them and us that we have a HVAC system that is adequate 19 and reasonable.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What sort of interim measures 21 are you going to take?
22 MR. BASKIN: The interim measures relate to 23 additional sealing of the control room and the control room 24 system to assure that we have positive pressure in the control 25 room to prevent in leakage and to be able to demonstrate that-e
---e-seyww pww-- .-w-y +rwe.-- . - - m -- -e y --+sec->,e.,my- g-, , ,,p., we, e- -myww w ..,,-,y-+,,,q-,,.--+w'y,m,s me w -rww391 h v7'- e esse 'mur ew* ww ==me w. ewww- m e we-w--
... 41 1 on a periodic basis.
,~
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I am not sure I understood that ;
l 3 but maybe I wasn't listening, I was thinking.
4 MR. BASKIN: Let me try it one more time.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right.
6 MR. BASKIN: The measures involve upgrading from a 7 maintenance standpoint the existing system and sealing air 8 leaks in the control room such that there is added assurance 9 that the control room is maintained at a positive pressure to 10 reduce in leakage and testing of the system including its
.11 filters and all that to assure that they are operating at 12 their expected capabi.'.ity. ~
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You haven't made any long term 14 commitments with regard to adding a redundant system?
15- MR. BASKIN: No. This is what -- like I say, ve are 16 actively discussing with the staff at this point in time.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me ask you one other 18 question. My staff was reviewing the recent history of 19 SONGS-1 and for a period of time that they didn't specify to 1
20 me, they pointed out that the history included ten abnormal 21 occurrences, six escalated enforcement actions and ten l 22 significant transients.
l
! 23 I was interested in what SCE could offer to improve 24 or give the Commission confidence that such a large number of i>
25 challenges to the present safety systems will not-continue to-l i
I I-
.. 42 1 occur. s 2 MR. BASKIN: Let me answer that and then Dave, you 3 might want to add something but basically, Mr. Chairman, for 4 the past several years and if I talk about the San onofre site 5 for the moment, all three units, over the past several years 6 we have been in the process of transitioning from a 7 construction site to an operating site where instead of having 8 one unit in operation and two under construction, we now have 9 three units in operation with all the attendant difficulties 10 that sometimes arise during the startup of new units and maybe 11 in our case some additional difficulties because of the fact 12 we are the first of the class of CE reactor to go in service
(. 13 that we have at the site, the so-called large CE reactor.
14 Because of the sort of efforts we have been going 15 through we have had among other things many contract as
- li6 opposed to Edison employee type people working at the site, 17 not in operating positions but in technical positions and 18 support positions, we have obviously from an operational and 19 maintenance standpoint been on the very high learning curve 20 and we have had to make the difficult transition from what I 21 will call the construction thinking to the operational 22 thinking.
23 We have made in our judgment significant progress in l 24 all of these areas. To give you one specific example by this 25 summer within the next few months the number of non-SCE --
1
_ . . _ . - _ _ _ _ . . - - _ . . - - . - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ - - ' -- '
l
.* 43 1 employees at the site working in operational areas, not 2 operators, but support function and that type of thing will be 3 down to approximately 100 from over 1,000 a short time ago.
4 That is the sort of changes we have made in-terms of 5 getting SCE employees in the position, making sure they are 6 properly trained and feel maybe a large obligation than the
< 7 contract employee does to the corporation and to doing things 8 properly.
9 We have been working very hard on training programs 10 in terms of educating our people. One of the benefits if one 11 wants to look at this side of it'of all the problems we have 12 had is that they do help you learn how to'do things better.
13 We think we have taken advantage of that.
{^
14 So we feel that the most difficult times are behind f
i 15 us and that we fully expect in our house and we fully expect 16 to be able to demonstrate to you that operation of that site i 17 in the future will be better than it has been in the past and i
18 we have the highest commitment in our corporation to do what l
t 19 is necessary to make that happen.
20 Dave.
21 MR. FOGERTY: Yes. I think just adding one or two 22 more thoughts to that idea, I think the program we have been 23 through on unit 1 in looking at the material condition of the 24 plant and from that coming out with 280 design changes and 25- over 3,500 maintenance changes, that is a significant- -
l
.- . 44 1 indication, I believe, in our ferreting out problems and doing ;
1 2 something about them. l 3 (At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner 4 Roberts re-entered the meeting.)
5 MR. FOGERTY: I think.with the area monitoring 6 program ongoing, we are going to have much better care of the l 7 plant but the program that we have described to you today, I 8 think, goes a long way in satisfying myself as a member of 9 senior management that that plant is in much better shape and 10 is going to run much better than it has in the past.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I recognize that many 4
~
12 improvements you have brought will help you in this regard. I
( 13 was pleased to hear of the commitment on the part of highest 14 management to see that this plant is operated properly and I 15 think that is an important commitment'and I think it should be 16 made apparent to all the people working there that there is 17 such a commitment and that there is appropriate follow through 18 in making sure that that commitment is carried out.
! 19 MR. FOGERTY: This commitment has been voiced by all i
20 of us plus our chairman of the Board, Howard Allen, and it has 21 been put in writing and was part of the training program at 2
22 the site.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Let me ask further 24 Commissioners if they have questions. Commissioner Roberts.
25 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No, thank you. - -
.~ - . - . -- _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ .a-
4 . .
- 4' 45 -
1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Jim.
l 2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Just a couple of quick l
3 questions. on the material condition review program, what I 4 would like to try and get is a little bit better sense for how 5 far you went in terms of upgrading the quality of the plant.
6 (At this point in the proceedings, Chairman 7 Palladino exited the meeting.)
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: You mentioned the numbers, 9 Dave, in terms of the activities or items but I guess one of 10 the questions I have is did you set as your objective "well, 11 let's assure that we meet whatever the tech spec levels are 12 and that is all we have to do" or did you'say to yourselves,
( 13 "You know, are there some things in the plant that have just 4
- 14- always given us trouble, for example, this valve, has always i 15 been a problem, it has always leaked ind sure, it is within j 16 tech spec limits but we have the opportunity now, we are going 17 to fix it so that it is not a potential initiator or 18 contributor to another serious operating event down the road."
19 What kind of standard or threshold did you use in 20 terms of the level that you wanted to bring the plant up to 1
21 with this program and, in particular, do you feel that you 22 have really brought the condition of the p1~ ant up to an I
23 optimal level, one where you think the equipment is going to
! 24 achieve a high degree of reliability both in the safety ,
25 systems and in the important non-safety related systems?* - -
~
R yw-- e +y , -rm-------,v-n, -,e ---,e. . -ew -.,w-..,e c y- w--i.-r- ---.4.-- _w.=,w..,-,--mi _.~.. .----------n- -.-- _ - - - - - - , --
.. =- -. . . . . - .
, : l 46 1 MR. FOGERTY: Certainly that is the case. It is our 2 belief that we have that plant in an absolute top level 3 condition at the present time. When we went in with the 4 review teams and went through the material condition, many of 5 those teams had people on it that were not associated with San 6 Onofre or even our. nuclear program.
'7 We drew from our fossil plant experience and from 8 our engineering support groups as well and apparatus people to 9 take a look at these systems, to make sure that we weren't 10 just getting them so that the station maintenance or station 11' technical people were satisfied with them to have an'outside 1
12 view come in and make a very critical review of it.
( 13 -
So we did look in many areas. We did not stop with 14
~
the technical specifications. In fact, I don't think in most l -15 cases that was even a consideration. '
The adequacy 16 determination was made by trying to use a yardstick of getting 17 the equipment in first class utility practices.
18 I guess I could illustrate that by indicating that 19 much of this work was done in areas or at least half of it, 20 the 26 systems that were looked at, approximately half were 21 not safety related systems so we weren't just going to a tech 22 spec.
l 23 We looked in those systems just as hard and in some 24 cases harder. We looked at check valves all over the plant' 25 beyond the 26 systems. Check valves we recognize'is a - --
. - , -. -,y,,.--w,g- - -- - - -
47
- 1. problem. We found problems with check valves on unit number 2 three, check valves that were fixed and only operated for 3 five' or six montics. We have gone in and put in hardened pins ,
m 4 on some check val <es that-were showing abnormal wear.
'5 So I think the thing that heartens me is I see this 6 as becoming a pervacive attitude ^ in the station to for this 7 higher standard than just t'ech spec adequacy or some minimum 8 standard, if it is leaking a little bit, that is all right.
9 That clearly is not the case.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
i ll MR. FOGERTY: One other point that I think you were
. 12 getting to earlier was on some of the electrical testing and I-( 13 would like to emphasize here just as we found on the check-14 valve testing, the standards being used by us and by the 15 industry, we don't believe were adequate and we are actively 16 communicating that message.
- 17 (At this point in the proceedings, Chairman 18 Palladino re-entered the neitt) 7.)
19 MR. FOGERTY: lu the area of electrical testing of j 20 cabling, it has been typical in our industry and by the IEEE 21 specification to test it with the equipment connected, with 22 the cable connected. We found that that is an inadequate way 23 to test cable insulation. i I
24 - We fcund cable that did not have adequate insulation
. 25- testing but you couldn't get enough potential on the cable to-l h
-rw- , - - -,w -ee- -w+w, e,--,. +m ~s- - - , , , , , - , , , , ,,- ,-,n,m- , ,, e ,- , y- ~ , - - - , e- -w,
48 1 check the break down voltage across the insulation unless you 2 disconnected it.
3 So this is something we are going to take back to 4 our code committees in IEEE in this case and also. communicate 5 to the rest of the industry that we have to do a much 6 different kind of electrical cable testing.
7 That is quite a revelation because is kind of our 8 bread and butter and we think we know a lot about that and it 9 turns out wo didn't know how to test it as well as should 10 have.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The second question I had, 1
12 this is an older plant and one of the things we have seen at 13 some of the older plants is configuration control problems.
{~
14 How do you think you stand on configuration control? Did you i
15 find out anything based upon your review, the design reviews 16 that you did as part of this exercise in terms of the 17 adequacies and configuration control?
18 I gather from what you were saying, you have done an 19 awful lot of modifications. Do you think you have a good 20 handle on that, that you are in good shape on that or were 21 there some areas you are still looking at?
22 MR. BASKIN: I guess it is almost both and let me I 23 say what I mean by that.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
(
25 MR. BASKIN: Clearly in recent years we 'have- - -
- -..,w---,,-- -, ,. -- ,,-,-,-,--,--.c,w m,,,, -
w-.,-.,, . . , . , -w-, -,.v----, -- , . - ---
.. 49 1 implemented very good configuration control processes and for 2 modifications that are being made now and have been made in 3 the last four or five years. We know we.are in very, very 4 good shape.
5 We have spent considerable effort over the past 6 years trying to update our configuration control from the 7 standpoint of bringing in old information to make sure it is 8 fully updated and we think we are pretty good but we are not 9 and I don't think we can ever be at the point where we are lo satisfied because rightly or wrongly the configuration control 11 applied in the late 1960's\early 1970's was just not what it 12 was today and unless there are specific circumstances that
( 13 call things to our attention, there may be things in terms of 14 configuration control that we don't have documented that we 15 just missed because of the age at which they were done.
16 However, we think the probability of that in a l
t 17 safety system is very unlikely. Most of our problems are in 18 non safety systems.
19 An example of this is the difficulty we had in going 20 back and digging out the maintenance history of these failed 21 check valves. They were not safety related valves until the l 22 early 1980's and it just took a lot of effort and we think we i
L 23 got most of it but there still may have been something we 24 missed.
25 So today and for the future, we are doing go'od and~ '
,,,-,v.m----_r- -' -tefm*'* - * * - - * " ' " ~ ~ - * " ~ ' * " * ' ' " ^ * ^ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' "
50 1 we are satisfied. Recalling all the past, we tried whether or
, 2 not we have been 100-percent successful, it is unlikely.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is there something that 4 needs to be done perhaps over time in terms of verifying the 5 configuration of the plant?
6 I guess I am mindful of the airline that was cut 7 what, a couple or several years ago in the heat sink pit when 8 you were adding the seismic upgrade around the edge. Is there 9 a way or something that you need to consider in terms of 10 longer term program to verify it?
11 MR. BASKIN: Well, we have an ongoing program and, 12 of course, every time we make a design change, we verify the 13 configuration by physical inspection or whatever so like I 14 say, 95-percent, I think we are in good shape.
15 If there is a b'uried line somewhere that we don't l 16 know about and that there is never any reason to dig up in 1
17 that area, there is just no way we can provide 100-percent 18 assurance I guess is what I am saying.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
l 20 MR. BASKIN: But we certainly recognize it as a i 21 legitimate problem for an older plant that has to be addressed i
I 22 and we have been addressing it.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The last question I had
- 24 had to do with the design basis. You have done the seismic
\
N-25 review work now. Are you satisfied that first, as fa'r as'th~e~ I
=
l
._ _ , _ _ _ - . _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ .__ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - . _ ~ __ -._.___ _,.. _ .. _ -_ . _. _ _ .
+* . .
51 1 original design basis is concerned that it is adequate,'that 2 ,there aren't any open areas where there are some questions and 3 second, that you are confident that in all respects now you 4 meet the original design basis for the plant?
~5 MR. BASKIN: You are using the word " original design 6 basis" and I want to make sure I am understanding-you. We are 7 confident right now that all, if I can use safety related kind 8 of systems, all systems that are required to be seismic 9 category one will meet the .67g design criteria is that is 10 responsive to your question.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Just a comment. The
- 12 material condition review program I continue to believe is an 13 excellent idea. In fact, since we met the last time I went to
{
14 Japan and I am absolutely convinced that high material quality 15 of the plants is a key element in the' success of that program 16 and I think this is a big step in the right direction.
17 I think you are to be commended for undertaking this 18 kind of program. I hope you will keep at it to keep plugging 19 away to get the plant to that optimal level and then keeping -
20 it at that optimal level so that you really can have a high 3
21 degree of confidence and we can, too, that you won't see 12 equipment failures and particularly the kind of multiple 23 equipment failures that caused trouble for you all last 24 November and that are causing troubles at other plants. I 25 think it is a good stop'in the right direction. * ~ ~~
. . ~ - . - , . . _ . - . . _ _ _ . _ . , . , _ . - . . _ , . . . . . _ _ . m ~-. . . -- __._,.._._-.__.__,-D-...- . . _ - - - _ _ - --. - _ - - - -
52 1 MR. FOGERTY: That certainly is our intent and we
-2 are going to maintain the condition of the plant and, in fact, 3 we hope to improve upon it in certain areas of housekeeping.
4 Since our last meeting our site manager and myself have been 5 to Japan and visited two of the plants there and we came back 6 truly impressed with the housekeeping job they do and the way 7 they take care of the equipment after it goes into initial 8 operation.
9 There is still much for us to learn and apply at San 10 Onofre.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me turn to Commissioner
~
13 Bernthal.
-14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes. I had just a couple of i
15 questions about= specific items that I' gather you have been 16 working on or are working on that I didn't see on the list 17 here of hardware improvements, updates, whatever and I 18 wondered that the status of those were.
19 Jne of them was the core cooling instrumentation 20 upgrade. I am simply asking the status because I gather that 21 you have been working on that and I wasn't sure where that 22 stood and why there was difficulty apparently in getting that 23 in.
24 I will just give you three of them here that were on 25 my list. A second was a safety parameter display system'that ~~
l .
,- +* 53 1 I gather'is also an item that is not completed yet. I 2 wondered about the status of that.
3 Then finally, the control room habitability issue 4 which you have analyzed, I' guess, and have indicated in your 5 judgment is not a cost effective thing for you to proceed 6' with, toxic gas, detection and what not.
7 Could you just tell me the status of those and I 8 guess our staff may comment on that as well.
9 MR. MEDFORD: Certainly. On inadequate core cooling 10 instrumentation, we have -- let me point out unit 1 given its 11 vintage it is uniquely difficult, maybe not uniquely 12 difficult, it is more difficult than for mont plants to
'( 13 14 implement the available ICC systems.
The CE heated junction thermocouple system which is 15 designed to look at the top of the core, it looks from above 16 the core to the top of the vessel, that system is designed 17 primarily with CE plants in mind. It would be difficult to 18 implement that on unit 1.
19 The Westinghouse system is a differential pressure 20 system and we don't have one of the two required taps to 21 implement that system on unit 1.
22 For those reasons, we believe that a combination of 23 the sub-cool margin monitor and an upgrading of the core exit 24 thermocouples is from a cost effectiveness standpoint the 25 optimal work to be performed on unit 1 for ICC. -~
54
. 1 We intend to make a submittal to the staff in the l
, 2- near future which would document that and then we go through 3 their review process.
4 On the safety parameter display system --
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: What is the target date on 6 that?
7 MR. MEDFORD: The submittal?
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes.
9 MR. RAINSBERRY: It would be the and of this month.
10 COMMISFIONER BERNTHAL: I see.
{ 11 MR. MEDFORD:~ On the safety parameter display 12 system, the only hold up there has been implementation of the j 13 control room design review. We have started and are well 14 along in our control room design review and, in fact, we are 15 going to meet with the staff in July to have them review the 16 results achieved to date there.
17 Once we have completed the control room design 18 review, the safety parameter display system will build on i
19 that. We see those two as intimately linked.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: What is~the completion date 4
21 on that would you guess?
j 22 MR. MEDFORD: We owe the staff a submittal in 23 January, 24 MR. RAINSBERRY: Early 1987. I don't recall the 25' date. * ~~
~
55 1 MR. MEDFORD: January of 1987 for both SPDS and the 2 control room design review.
3 Finally on control room htbitability, we did a cost J 4 effectiveness study of potential modifications to the control 5 room HVAC for control room habitability purposes, i-6 Specifically when those words are used, it usually means toxic 7 gas.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes.
9 MR. MEDFORD: The cost effectiveness study indicated 10 that the probability of such an event was so low that no 11 changes were indicated.. However, that is not our final word
~
12 on the subject. We have before the staff right now a
( 13 submittal which would improve the performance of the San 14 Onofre control room HVAC from the standpoint of control room 15 habitability.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Aren't there requirements to be l 17 met that presumably you are not meeting? So aside from cost l 18 benefit analysis, if the requirement is there and you are not 19 meeting it, then something needs to be done at least it would l
20 appear to me. I am going to ask the staff more about this 21 when they come on.
22 MR. MEDFORD: It is --
l 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Presuming we get them on before 24 3:30. We have to get them on before 3:30 so that we can 25 continue with them. * ~~
~
e w ,,w,-y,,3-* y--* , . , pw-e-.-a g. ,---r=--w- em"* s- e-*' -"w"-'+--= "-"e~' "'*r"'"'"*-" **" " " " * " " * ' ' " * ' "" * - " ~ ' ~ ~ ^ ^ - - ^ ~ - - ^ ^ ^
t 56 I
l 1 MR. MEDFORD: I know that they are anxious.
l
- 2. (Laughter.)
3 MR. MEDFORD: It is true that the unit 1 control 4 room does not meet contemporary criteria. However, sort of 5 guiding light of the SEP Program is whether or not the changes
- 6 required to get an older plant into compliance with i' 7 contemporary criteria are worth it or not.
- 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That is why I wanted to dwell 9 more with the staff on it. Do you have more, Frod?
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Just one quick one. I think i
. 11 every time you are here I ask you this question because it
~
12 sticks in my mind and the staff probably knows what I am going 13 to ask.
{
14 When I was out visiting the plant two years ago or
, 15 whenever it was, I remember a plea and a point being made of 16 the 70-odd license amendments that you had outstanding or i
17 proposed license amendments. What ever happened to all of 18 thos2? Are those all cleared up now?
- 19 The problem was ours, by the way, as I understood it 20 to a substantial extent and we have talked about that here but 21 what is going on out in California with that?
22 MR. MEDFORD: :Let me point out that backlog was on
) 23 San Onofre units 2 and 3. On unit 1, there has never been a 24 backlog of that nature and we have never really had a problem 12 5 in that area.
y -- .- -------,.,-..,,-,,,,,,ww--.--, .,m.ww-- .-,..-,,,.-.w.e-.,~ ..w,,. ,,,y,r,.m.,.,.,-m,..,, -,--.---,v..w,-,,... --um,v-.-.,,--w.- ...,,e
- 57 1 We did mention the 70-odd outstanding license 2 amendments on units 2 and 3. We had substantial cooperation 3 with our counterparts at the NRC staff. The backlog is not 4 down to zero, but we prioritized them. The most important 5 ones have been improved and we are down to a very workable 6 number. I think the number outstanding is around 20 right 7 now.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Good. That is encouraging.
9 ,
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Commissioner Zech.
10 ,
COMMISSIONER ZECH: No, thank you.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you, gentlemen.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Joe, I just have one more
(' 13 question, one other thing that I thought of a few moments ago 14 and it will be a quick one.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right.
l 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: As I recall when I was out 17 there last, you have a shared system, the auxiliary feedwater .
! i
- 18 system and high pressure injection.
19 (At this point in the proceedings, commissioner i
. 20 Bernthal exited the meeting.)
21 MR. MEDFORD: The main feedwater system and the 22 safety injection system are shared.
4 23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, that is right. Did l
24 you make any modifications to that and are you comfortable t' -
3 25 with that shared arrangement in terms of the potential fo'r ~ ~'
~
e
- e. - , ., ,,myy ---,- ..-p-n*,w--wedy-.- +y
.- 58 1 problems? .
p 2 MR. BASKIN: We did not make any modifications to
.3 that. One of the items we have as a part of our integrated 4 living schedule for unit 1 at San Onofre is to modify that i
i 5 system at the next refueling outage to make improvements in 6 terms of its current configuration.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Those kinds of shared 8 systems, I think, leave me with a certain sense of discomfort 9 in terms of the long term operability and reliability and 10 maintainability of the systems.
11 MR.-BASKIN: Yes. It certainly.. raises unique 12 problems. However, it also does have a few unique advantages
(\ 13 but it is something that is on our list that I guess we could 14 say we volunteered to do and I mean that honestly and is 15 scheduled for the next refueling outage.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good. That is all. -
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you, gentlemen. I wonder 18 if we could have the staff replace you at the table.
19 I am going to suggest in view of the time that you 20 select the items you think are very important to bring to our 21 attention and maybe we might pick up a few minutes.
22 MR. STELLO: Let us begin because there clearly is 23 not much time, I think the licensee has covered many of the 24 things that we would have covered had we gone through all of
~ ~
25 the information we prepared for this meeting. - - --
. . . . . . . - . , . . O
1
.. . 59 .
1 Let's get to the bottom line quickly. The licensee 2 and we are not yet finished. There is more work to do. We 3 expect to have that finished and Jack personally will complete 4 the inspections that he, himself, wants to go down and satisfy 5 himself that everything is ready before we are prepared to say 6 that it is okay to start up. We are not prepared to do that 7 yet.
8 We expect pernaps towards the and of the month that 9 we will be.
10 We are satisfied that the licensee has, in fact, put 11 together a program in response to the IIT program that is a
~
12 good program. They did the things that are the right things
(' 13 to do.
14 As I sat and listened to the discussion I might say 15 publicly, I think there are lot of lessons and I think it 16 would be useful for the licenses to sit down and write down 17 and have those lessons that he feels he has learned from this 18 experience communicated to the rest of the industry in some ,
19 rather comprehensive manner rather than bits and pieces.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Have you discussed this with 22 them?
- 23 MR. STELLO: I am discussing it right now if he is 24 listening.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I want to make sure that we'are'
.---~
,, 60
]* 1 listening.
2 MR. STELLO:- I think as we gain experience in going 3 with an IIT and the lessons learned, I think it is important 4 for the licensee to also write down the lessons they think 5 that they have learned from all of this in doing the kind of
-1 6 excellent work that they did do and I do want to commend them 7 for that.
i 8 I have already taken more time than I want. Let me 9 ask the staff to very quickly anticipating some of the i lo questions you have already asked to.try to answer them in 11 addition to making whatever other important points we have to l 12 make in the now seven minutes that are left.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, --
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: You have more time than 15 that. -
i 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. You will have more time i 17 than that.
18 MR. MARTIN: What I would like to have is first IE 19 and then NRR representatives comment on the licensee's l
l 20 presentation. We are not going to rehash it all. I think we i
i 21 agree with what they said. We do have some comments on it and i
22 certainly in those areas that you have expressed interest and
! 23 then I have a few comments summarizing our overall view and l 24 some things that we have done in the region in the last month i 25 or so, I think you will be interested in on this.- So Ellis, -
+-.. -.---,..,-,-,,-,mm-,-,-,-w.--+,m.-,,w...,,,.-wwm,wm.m_,---.~,,-
,.-e-,,wne.- -,.
. - . _ . . - . - . - . _ -. .- - . . - . - . .- - . ~ . - -
l 1 )
.. 61 1 why don't you being.
f
. 2 MR. MERSCHOFF: IE's responsibility focused on the 3 area of check valve related problen: and our overview of the 4 licensee's action has been an iterative process that
. 5 ultimately culminated in a corrective action that is 6 ' considered acceptable to the staff.
, 7 That iterative process included inspections at the i 8 San Onofre site, at the affected vendors, at the Utah testing 9 facility, at other vendors. It included various meetings with 10 the licensee and reviews of various submittals.
11 There were five areas that we looked at and each of
~
l 12. these five areas, I think, was appropriate 1y covered by the i -
-( 13 licensee earlier. Those five areas were the root cause
- 3 14 analysis, the adequacy of the check valve design, the
} 15 corrective actions taken, the IIT program and the adequacy of 16 check v'alves in other systems.
17 I am prepared to answer any particular questions you l
la may have in those areas but we think that the bottom line is 19 that the licensee has taken a responsible corrective action 20 and performed an acceptable root cause analysis.
21 MR. STELLO: Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that you 22 recognize that we have asked all of the owners groups to get l
23 together and deal with this issue and I think the information 24 that they gained as a result of what they did in reviewing the 25 facility would be very, very helpful in getting the kinds'or
.. 62 1 insights as to how the owners ought to approach this.
2 Could we maybe go to NRR and have them very quickly 3 summarize and then get to answer questions.
4 MR. DUDLEY: Fine. NRR reviewed 18 technical issues 5 .that were related to the event. They fell in four 6 categories. It was issues related to the station blackout, 1
7 issues related to, issues related to plant systems, issues 8 related to post trip data retrieval and the issues related to 9 component integrity.
lo Just the highlights of the station blackout issue
- 11 that we reviewed, the plant's existing offsite power sources i
- 12 do comply with GDC-17. The modificationsthat are being made i(
13 to enhance the restoration of the display source are 14 acceptable and the commitment to implement the modification to 1
i 15 get a second immediate access to offsite power is beyond the 16 requirements of GDC-17 and is acceptable.
l 17 The other issue that we should mention is that we 18 have reviewed the San onofre design in which the diesel 19 generators are manually loaded in the case that you have a 20 loss of offsite power without a coincident safety injection 21 signal.
22 The licensee submitted a systems review which showed
( 23 that 29 minutes is the limiting case in which manual action is 24 required to load the diesel generators. The staff carefully 25 reviewed the submittal. - * -^
I L
.. 63 1 We concur ylth the submittal and that 29 minutes is 2 an adequate time to perform these minimal manual actions given 3 that the diesels would have already started but just need to
- 4 be loaded to the bus. .
5 We also concur that auto loading would not have 6 altered the event on November 21.
! 7 Plant systems issues that we looked at, you have 8 heard about how the licensee has made changes for prevention
! 9 of water hammer. We feel those changes are acceptable.
10 However, we did review the main steamline design at San Onofra 11 1. It is unique in that the steam generators are all tied 12 toge'ther inside containment by a common st~eam header.
(' 13 If you break a steam line or feed line, you could 14 potentially depressurize all three steam generators. However, 9
l 15 we looked at the containment response to this sort of a 16 break. We reviewed the primary system cool down transient and 17 we looked at the offsite dose considerations.
18 one thing in addition we looked at is aux feedwater
, 19 system reliability. If you depressurize all three stream i
20 generators, you are left without steam to drive a steam driven i 21 aux feedwater pump and yet the licenses has installed their 22 third aux feedwater pump and will make it full safety grade 23 next outage.
i j 24 We feel that these commitments and these schedules 25 are acceptable. . - --
~
~- - _ . _ . . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . , . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ , . _ . . . _ _ . - . _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.=~ 64 1 The modifications to improve the steam generator
.2 blow down control are similarly acceptable and the 3 modifications that you have heard to improve the post trip 4 data retrieval are also acceptable.
, 5 We looked finally at some component integrity l
6 issues. We think the feedwater line repair is acceptable and -
7 in non-destructive examination is also acceptable. They all 8 meet the ASME code.
4 l 9 The low levels that occurred in the steam generators 10 on November 21, we have discussed these with tha licensee and i 11 information has been provided in that we concur with the 12 licensee that damage should not have resulted to the steam 13 generators.
14 As a part of our investigation we did consider the
$ 15 fact that there are loose parts in the steam generator feed 16 rings. When the check valves disassembled, most likely.is 17 where these parts came from.
l 18 There are a couple of nuts with broken pieces of 19 studs inside them that have found their way into the steam 20 generator feed rings. These parts are substantially larger t
21 than the'one inch flow holes in the bottom of the feed ring.
1 22 The licenses has verified that these parts are in l
i 23 the feed rinks and that they are in low flow areas. They l
24 shown no evidence of wear or becoming smaller.
25 We think that is adequate to allow them to restart -
~
w
.* 65 1 but we have asked and they have committed to inspecting the 2 feed rings at the next outage to verify the condition of these 3 parts and, if necessary, to propose additional corrective
, 4 actions.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Why can't they be found 6 and fished out?
7 MR. DUDLEY: Well, they were found but they couldn't 8 he fished out by a secondary site inspection without cutting 9 a hole actually into the feed ring.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
11 MR. MARTIN: I think to summarize, in my mind there 12 are really three major things that have ha~ppened here. The
[ 13 IIT, of course, was all very important and I think we have all n
14 focused a lot of attention on that both in NRR and in IE. But 15 in my mind, at least to me in the Region, the more significant 16 and quite discretionary aspect of all of-this was the material 17 review program which, I think, in large part flowed out of 18 this and some previous enforcement issues we had had this year 19 where these incidents seem to be proceeding from failures of 20 equipment and things in parts of the plant that we normally 21 don't look at very hard.
22 I think the utility was quite responsive in 23 deciding, " Hey, we better go look at some of this stuff,"
24 transformers and breakers and things in outlying parts of the d
plant that we normally don't look at very hard.
~
25 - - --
O
.mn---,,
66 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Do we look at them at all? -
2 MR. MARTIN: We don't, no.
l 3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
a 4 MR. MARTIN:- Except during incidents and there was 5 an incident earlier this year where they lost an auxiliary 6 feed pump that proceeded from a failure of a transformer that j 7 normally doesn't get looked at and again, it gets to this 8 question of reliability and how it relates to safety.
9 So I am quite pleased with the approach they took-i lo here and took a large slice of non-safety related equipment 4
11 with a pretty intelligent sampling basis to it that if that 12 checked out, one might reasonably think that similar equipment 1
( 13 is in good shape and I have looked at that program pretty hard I 14 .and it did have significant findings that you could visualize l 15 might cause trouble later. -
T 16 The area monitoring program is a program they put in 17 place several months ago but at least now makes a lot more 18 sense once you have a baseline to proceed one from and again, 19 I think it is very significant because we had concluded some 20 months ago that the basic working atmosphere particularly in t
21 the incident involving an aux feed pump was just not 22 satisfactory.
23 Work habits were not very good, supervisors were not 24 as attentive as they should be and I think this kind of a
' ~
25 program that clearly tags a person by name for being - - --
l l
k
,. 67 1 responsible for a certain area and making sure it is in good 2 shape'and you know whose hand to shake if things aren't going 3 right is a big step forward and I am quite pleased with the 4 other two aspects of this that I think will help a lot.
5 Another thing that I did that gets to the heart of 6 your question, Mr. Chairman, about the past operating history 7 of this plant, I have done this before and it is not terribly 8 scientific but I think it gives a lot of good insight is about 9 a month ago, I took three of my senior people down to the 10 plant for a week and we interviewed about 100 people, a few 11 more than 100, of all kinds, maintenance people, supervisors, 12 electricians, vice presidents -- every one' that we could*think
( 13 of that might have a stake in this and at random, I m'ean they 14 weren't picked by the utility.
15 I was particularly interested to get a sense of why 16 they think things are happening, why this incident happened, 17 why some earlier this year happened to get a feel for how 18 people feel about operating in a disciplined fashion and to 19 get a sense of whether I believe historically sa7 Onofre Unit 20 1 has been treated more leniently than 2 and 3 by the people 21 themselves.
22 Why this is is probably historical. I wanted to get 23 a sense as to whether that gap is narrowing some. I did this 24 about two years ago and detected quite a bit of lack of 25 communication up and down the line in the company. - - --
~
'u '=m ________ _ _
.. 68
. 1 People in the control room weren't sure why they and j 2 to follow procedures, why they couldn't use more discretion.
3 Are'we turning this whole business into a police state. They 4
4 were uncertain and somewhat hostile to some of this stuff.
5 I was surprised to find out that such basic issues 6 like following procedures and doing things in a disciplined 7 fashion and that has been digested and accepted and I really 8 got no negative feedback at all and many of the people were 9 the same people that I talked to a couple of years ago.
1 10 Sort of the difference in attitudes between the unit 11 1 people and the unit 2 and 3 people seemed to be much less.
12 so I guess I came away with a fafrly high level of
( 13 confidence that the people that actually operate and do design 14 work and maintenance, you know, view some of these things 15 seriously. It is not just lip service.
16 So I have a fairly degree of -- for now, at least I i
17 have some data points that what was said was going to be done
! 18 a couple of years ago was, in fact, done and I guess I have 19 some confidence with what they say they are doing now and, in 20 fact, will be accepted and become part of the scene down 21 there.
22 so we have a few more inspections to do. Most of i 23 the modifications they talked about and the procedure changes
- 24 and that sort of thing have been inspected by the region. We 25 have five inspectors there full time and that all checks out -
,.-,____._,__.,_3., _ , . . , _ . . _ _ , .,--,-_.-y,_.,_,,, ___,.. _ , _ , ,_.,..,m,, r,, ___m_.-,.
. - - ._. . _ _. _ e . .
.,. 69 4
1 and I believe~that as the plant restarts, it will be a lot i
2 more reliable than it was and certainly the attitude of the 3 operating people is, I found, little to complain about.
4 That is the end of what we wanted to say. Perhaps l 5 someone should talk about the ventilation systems and our 6 review on that. The. control room ventilation system seems to 7 be of particular interest.
i 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. I was particularly 1
9 interested in what they requirements are, how many other i 10 plants there might be without a redundant heating, ventilation 11 and air conditioning system and what your views are with 12 regard to this particular plant.
~
13
( MR. DUDLEY: All right. Fine. Mr. Chairman, the 14 licensee's most recent submittal on the TMI control room 15 habitability ventilation item came in on March 28. We have 16 looked at that submittal and also as part of an investigation 17 -- inspection, I guess is a better word, combined with Region
- 18 V, NRR looked at the ventilation systems currently at San 19 Onofre 1 and we also since we were out there were able to 20 evaluate their March proposal.
i 21 We determined that we didn't have sufficiently 22 detailed information in that submittal to truly evaluate their
- 23 upgrades on their merits and as a part of the inspection, we
{ 24 asked that they provide us additional further detailed
~
3 25 technical information so that we could evaluate their proposed-i e-+ar- -- 4--y -
-w, _,-g-+--m-
-r-r ,e m p e s c .e er se---weeev-me--- - = ,,w rww.ww--we-pre.--m-e-a-* .w - w w w e ww w wowe* ere-+gwewe-w-_
, ,. 70 1 upgrades.
2 Would you like to elaborate on that, Jim?
3 MR. MILHOAN: I think with respect to the present 4 heating and ventilation system, the control room habitability, 5 we participated with region V in inspection of that system and 6 we found unacceptable leakages, in leakages, into the control 7 room with the present system and we are now, Southern Cal 8 Edison is now working to reduce those in leakages into the 9 control room.
10 We are also working with them concerning criteria 11 with respect to startup of the plant in relation to the l
j* 12 control room habitability question. We afe coming up with i
13 criteria we think are acceptable and think criteria that will
.{
i 14 he met prior to restart which would be consistent with the 15 long term upgrade of control room habitability with respect to
(
16 doses of the control room operators.
I 17 Those doses in the near term, the calculations 18 related to the doses in the near term, credit will have to be 19 given for respirators and thyroid blocking agents to be 20 consistent with the criteria we applied to other plants for 21 the long term upgrade for compliance with GDC-19.
22 We are working toward that method. They have 23 supplied us a calculation. They are now trying to verify and 24 seal up the leakages into the duct system which will verify
\'
25 the numbers that they have supplied in their calculation to - - ~
i L
- l 4
71 1 us.
2 We with respect to the long term upgrade or the 3 March 28 submittal, we still have that under' review and we are 4 concentrating our attention at the present time to the present 5 ventilation system in the SONGS 1 control room.
2 6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I thought the long ters 7 upgrade was determined to be not a cost effective measure to j 8 take by the utility. Is that what you are about to evaluate?
9 MR. MILHOAN: that is what we are about to evaluate 10 with respect to present regulatory requirements.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: You are saying that as for 12 the present system, the leaks are going to'be plugged and
{ 13 respirators will be available and thyroid blocking agents, 14 potassium iodide, I guess --
! 15 MR. MILHOAN: Yes. .
- 16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL
- -- will be available and 17 then that in your judgment meets our requirements.
18 MR. MILHOAN: That, in our judgment, is an I 19 acceptable, I think in my judgment, acceptable for restart of 20 unit 1. In the long term, use of respirators and thyroid 21 blocking agents has not been permitted for demonstrating I
22 compliance with our general design criteria 19.
f 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: What as a practical matter I
l 24 aside from all of the regulatory speak, what would you have to 25 do to upgrade the system and what would it cost? Does anybody.
~
,. 72 1 know besides the utility? -
2 3GL. MIIROAN: I think the utility would probably be 3 in the best position to answer that question but if you were 4 talking about an upgrade with respect to meeting the criteria 4
-5 that we apply to present plants in the licensing process, you l 6 would be talking about a redundant system which is seismic 7 category one safety grade which has toxic gas provisions in 8 ther..
9 I could speculate but it would only be pure l 10 speculation on our part as to the cost.
- 11 , CHAIRMAN PALLADINO
- I think Mr. Baskin may have a !
I 12 comment. ~
i' l 13 MR. BASKIN: Yes. We have looked at that on a
,\
14 couple of occasions and what was said'is correct. Basically
{
15 we have to upgrade slightly the existing train and add a i
16 completely redundant safety grade train which means seismic j 17 classification, all of that.
j 18 Because of the physical space availability or lack 4 .
! 19 thereof, it means actually building a new building to house l
20 this equipment. Our estimates for the cost of this addition 21 right now are in the three to five million dollar range for 22 what would have to be added and upgraded.
) ' 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: The Chairman asked what '
I j 24 other plants are in the same boat or at least the import of
~
I 25 the question -- - - --
l l
. .- .m..,r--,--., . - , . . --...-.,--y ,. -..m,---, _ m -,,w..r .,, _ w w,.m. .- ,. -,m., 3-..
73 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And what is the requirement? I 2 am not clear. Do we require a redundant heating, ventilation 3 and air conditioning system?
4 .MR. STELLO: As I recall, this is one of the TMI 5 requirements that flew out of TMI.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That is what I thought.
7 MR. STELLO: But the regulation is general design a criteria 19 and we use a number and I have forgotten the 9 number, maybe someone on the staff can tell me.
10 MR. MILHOAN: For general design criteria 19 for 11 whole body dose, it is five rem; for thyroid dose using the 12 SRP 6.4 criteria, it would be 30 rem thyroid dose, general
( 13 design criteria 19 says five rem or equivalent so you have to 14 figure whole body and thyroid dose.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do we require redundant HVAC 16 systems?
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Do they meet the GDC?
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What is that?
i 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Do they meet the five ren?
20 MR. MILHOAN: For whole body dose at the present 21 time, the calculation we have in from Southern Cal Edison
! 22 shows it a 6.6 rem whole body dose if I remember correctly.
1 23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: So they don't meet the l 24 GDC.
l
! 25 MR. MILHOAN: They are beyond that on whole body- --
~
i
.. 74 1 dose but that is not related to the heating and ventilation 2 system per se because that is more shielding requirem~ents than 3 what dose you would get from in leakage into the control room.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I was interested in what our 5 requirement is and whether other plants are in the same 6 situation.
7 MR. STELLO: Do we know the status of other plants?
8 If not --
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We will get it later.
10 MR. STELLO: A perfectly acceptable answer is we 11 don't know.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I recognize -this is a long
( 13 term issue at least as presented by the staff.
14 MR. MILHOAN: I looked at my control room
- 15 habitability experts in the audience and they are telling me 16 two to three plants but I don't know whether that is a firm 17 number.
18 MR. QUAY: That was prior to the reorganization. I 19 don't know the status of that has been addressed since the j 20 reorganization.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I didn't hear that. What did 22 he say? .
i 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: We have reorganized the 24 problem away.
25 MR. STELLO: I think the answer, Mr. Chairman, is we~
~
, , - - , - , - - - - - -,----~-,-c,---,-,-.--w- - - - , - - - -----------,---e - ---- .n.y,,n,,-a, -
.. 75 1 don't know. We will provide it to you.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Unless the 3 Commission feels otherwise,'I will accept this as a long term
- 4 issue and maybe if you provide the information, it will 5 satisfy our needs.
6 MR..STELIO: I would be happy to.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Let me turn to --
8 MR. STELLO: Comni'ssioner Asselstine has raised a 9 question that has not been anuwered.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Why don't they meet the 11 GDC?
12 MR. STELLO: He said, "
Do they me~et the GDC today if 13 the dose calculation is 6.-whatever and they are supposed to 14 meet --
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Five.
in MR. STELID: -- our interpretation of five.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: There is no 18 , interpretation. It says, "Under accident conditions without 19 personnel receiving radiation exposures in excess'of five rem 20 whole body:or its equivalent to any part of the body for the 21 duration of the accident." De they meet it?
22 MR. MILHOAN: If you are asking me a direct 23 question, they.do"not meet tite fire rem in GDC-19.
34 MR. STELLO: Now when they make the modifications
\- 25
~
that they are making, will they? - -
9 we
.. 76 1- MR. MILHOAN: It is doubtful that when they make the 2 modifications they would meet the five rem in GDC-19. It 3 would be my expectation that they would apply for an exemption 4 to that particular provision.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Their calculation is 6.7, 6 you say?
7 MR. MILHOAN: It is 6.6.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Six point six.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Why haven't they applied {
10 for an exemption already and under what conditions can the t-11 plant be allowed to operate in violation of the GDC7 12 MR. STELLO: The only conditi.on it is allowed to 13
( operate in is you get an exemption to it.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Can't hear you, Vic.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Have they applied for an 16 exemption?
- 17 MR. STELLO: I don't know if they have. I don't 18 think our review is finished as best as I understand.
19 MR. MILHOAN: That is correct. Our review is not i
20 completed.
i l
21 MR. STELLO: When will be finished?
22 MR. MILHOAN: It would be expected that our review l
23 of their initial submittal would be finished in approximately 24 one to two months after we complete the present review of 25 their present ventilation system. . - --
~
9 4
. . - - - _ ,_ - - - , - . . , . _ . - , . , , - . . . . , , , ,,-,.-_.,.-m. , ,- . , . . _ . . -c-
,. 77 1
1 MR. STELLO: Now one other thing. Have we changed t
2 the techniques that we are using for these calculations over 3 the years? Are we applying today's standard review plan to .
4 this plant versus the one that was used to license it 5 originally? Are we using different techniques today than we _
6 used originally?
l 7 MR. MILHOAN: I would say we --
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I hope so.
9 MR. MILHOAN: -- with respect to the TMI action plan 10 item 3 (d) (3) (4) , it would indicate that the standard review 11 plan, 6.4, would be applied to those plants.
12 MR. STELLO: All right. So it ma'y be that they met
( 13 the general design criteria at the time of licensing and we 14 decided to do it differently and have'a new interpretation of 15 how to do the calculation. I don't know the answer. -
16 I would rather say we will get you an answer but 17 let's not try to manufacture one sitting here when it is clear 18 to me that we don't know.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
20 MR. STELLO: Let's leave it at that.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Did Mr. Baskin have a comment?
22 MR. BASKIN: Yes. Mr. Chairman, at least from our 23 perspective, we have not applied for an exemption in this area 24 because from a regulatory standpoint, the general design 25 criteria do.not apply to San Onofre Unit 1.
~
It was licensed- -
- ye---- vwy- w-- -, -- , -e-, - - - - , - - - + = - , - - , , - - - - , - , - - - - - - + --e + - - --,v ---
,, 78 i
1 prior to that and unless there is a specific commitment on a l
1 2 document to a specific criteria, they don't apply. I l
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right. 1 4- MR. STELLO: That is an even easier answer. It was 5 licensed prior to the GDC.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Gee, we have plants that 7 the GDC don't even apply to.
8 MR. MARTIN: I still think we had better get you an 9 answer.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, I think so.
11 MR. MARTIN: Our approach to date is to make sure 12 that before startup that the plant meets what it was
( 13 originally designed to do, get the leaks plugged and get it up i 14 to where it originally was designed. Then the argument 15 revolves around what.is it reasonable to do beyond that and 16 that is what is being considered.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think an answer and the 19 staff's position on the answer would be valuable to us.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let's see. This is one of 21 these things though that ultimately, I gather, comes down to 22 the very thing the licensee has done that you are going to 23 review. If they were not under the original license required i
24 in the GDC, then it falls under our backfit procedure, does it
~
25
~
not? - - -
g
,-e--w-r mi w e --r e --i * - * ~ . ---r -- - - - - - =..3 -w ---- m a*ew-- -t -
w - r -
.. 79
' . 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: My tasking to the staff was,
-- 2 find the answer and give us their reaction to the answer 3 whether something should be done, not be done, whether an 4 exemption is needed or not needed, those kinds of things. l I
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That is besides the point of 7 the question I asked. Assuming that -- never mind. I assume 8 it falls under the backfit procedure. I am just trying to 9 determine what --
10 MR. STELLO: One more thought. This is an SEP
, 11 plant. One of the reasons we had SEP plants were to go back i
12 and look at those old plants which were prior to the GDC and 13 take a look at what we should do in each of these areas.
(} As I 14 recall, I think San Onofre was one.
, 15 So in the SEP Program, this is an issue that 16 specifically hopefully was addressed. Maybe this would be a 17 good test to see --
l 18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: How it was, good.
i 19 MR. STELLO: Yes. But that was one of the reasons 20 we built the SEP Program was to go back and take a look at 21 that very question.
i
!- 22 I want to say that I have the feeling we need to 23 have a thoughtful answer.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's a good idea.
~
25 MR. STELLO: I don't like fragmented answers. which -
~
~
--.,,-.m-- -,,,-,,,ee,e - - -
9 l
80 l 1 make us look bad. I think it makes you look bad. Let us get 2 the answer, come back to you. If it is bad, mea culpa; if it 3 is good, I will say, " Hooray."
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: We are used to looking bad.
5 MR. STELLO: I don't want to do it intentionally.
4 6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But'we want to change.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Will somebody explain to me 8 for just two seconds how you can calculate a dose in an 9 accident scenario to a tenth of an "R" exposure with any 10 certainty?
11 MR. STELLO: Gee, we use computers and do it much
. 12 better than that. ~
{ 13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: We sure do, probably six 14 decimal places but realistically, what are the uncertainties 15 in something like that? They must be.plus or minus --
16 MR. MARTIN: The difference between five and 6.4, I 17 guess, is --
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It can't possibly be a 19 significant determination at that level.
20 MR. STELLO: As I recall there is a reg guide that 21 sets forth the process and procedures that are used to do 22 these calculations and it is really literally turning a 23 crank. You turn a crank and that is the answer.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: all right.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you have more, Vic? -
~
,.-,w.,,-,,----,-,we,-,,, ,,,,v-,--.,, , , - - , . - - . . - , , - - - . . . - - - - , . . - ~
.. 81 1 MR. STELLO: No, except just to conclude, our view 2 is that when you do all of the things that we have said they 3 need to be done yet, when those are finished, then we would
. 4 feel comfortable in allowing the plant to start back up. Our 5 expectation is based on what we know today is that that is a 6 few more weeks off and when all that is finished, then we 7 . would be prepared to say the plant can start back up.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Thank you. I want 9 to give each Commissioner a chance to make any comment or ask 10 a question but I would appreciate a comment from each 11 commissioner on this point.
12 We said that we did not plan this as a vote
{ 13 meeting. However, I'think it would be important for each 14 commissioner to indicate any feeling he has. I, for example, 15 would feel that when the EIO is ready to make the startup 16 decision, he inform the Ccamission and proceed to do it.
17 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I agree with that.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But you can make any comment or l
19 question you want. Jim, do you want to start?
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Just a couple of quick 21 questions. Jack, could you give me your perception of the j 22 material condition of the plant now as a result of this 23 material control program in terms of how far you think they l
24 have come, how much farther if any they need to go over time
' ~
25 to reach a quality condition in the equipment such that we --
- - . - . - . . . - , , _ . . . - . - . . - . . . . , . . . , - . - . - . l -
.. 82 1 would have a high degree of confidence that we wouldn't see 2 particularly multiple equipment failures?
3 MR. MARTIN: I guess my feeling is and it isn't a 4 very good answer but I think it is a lot better than it was 5 but I really don't have a very good anchor point to say 6 exactly where it is.
7 When I was down there about a month ago, I 8 personally spent several hours looking at the plant and I 9 wasn't very happy. That is why I am going back personally to 10 look again.
11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Wasn't very happy with what 12 exactly? ~
13 MR.-MARTIN: I wasn't very happy with what I saw.
{-
14 The plant was dirty and I found if I can find things wrong, 15 there must be a lot more than what I see.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: This was a month ago?
17 MR. MARTIN: Yes. Now admittedly, they had not 18 presented the plant for inspection but still if it is a month 19 away from what they planned for restart then, I was able to 20 find cables pulled out of junction boxes and things like that 21 that aren't terribly hair-raising, but they shouldn't be like
.22 that.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
24 MR. MARTIN: So my falling is that San Onofre Unit 1 was not in a very good state of repair.
~
25 I think it is a lot -
+ , - ,,--,,-.,-,,........---,---.,..r - ..--,,--.........m- - , , , - - - - , . - , . , , . - - .,.m- . - - - , . - . . - - - - . . _
.. 83 1 .better now but I think we are going to have to be very 2 vigilant and get some experience to see are they close to 3 units 2 and 3 yet. I don't know.
4 I think they are a lot better. Whether it is good 5 enough or not, I think we will have to look very closely at 6 events, at maintenance work being done and see how it looks 7 but certainly I think it is going to be much better than it 8 was.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right. I guess my 10 sort of gut reaction was about the same as yours, that they 11 weren't in very good shape before and there are limits to how
- 12 much you can really accomplish in a four-tonth period of time
,( 13 or so.
14 What is your sense for the configuration control 15 situation? .
16 MR. MARTIN: I think it is probably pfatty good.
17 .This is a pretty simple plant. It is not one of these really 18 complicated plants like the others down there and my guess is l
19 that it is a simpler task in the first place and my sense is 20 that they have very good systems for keeping track of that 21 now. You know, for the last two or three years things have 22 been real good.
23 But things get pretty murky if you go back to what 24 happened eight or ten years ago when, I think, Mr. Baskin's 25
~
answer was, I would agree with that completely, I think they- -
l l
,, 84 1 are-in pretty good shape now and they have as part of this 2 material control review program gone back and tried to 3 recreate quite a bit of that, I don't sense any mainly because 4 the plant is fairly simple and they have done quite a bit of 5 work on it that has been captured by the new control system. ,
6 I don't feel uncomfortable about it, i
7 MR. STELLO: Jack, I want to put a nervousness in-8 there.
9 MR. MARTIN: I hope you detected a nervousness in my 10 answer.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
12 MR. STELLO: The plant was licens~ed a long time ago
( 13 and the system of licensing used now over'20 years ago has ;
14 come a long way. The kind of information that we require in
! 15 terms of documentation and design aspects and design evolution ;
16 are much different today than they were back then in terms of 17 even what was required, much less of what would be in the 18 record system than what we required to be kept.
l 19 So I certainly would think as you go back in time to 20 the older plants, you almost ought to expect to see a lesser 21 of the kind of configuration control than you could find in a 22 plant licensed today. We are finding that there is work to be
- 23 done in this area in recently licensed plants so I would 24 suspect that if we went in there and did a very thorough looking, I would not be surprised to find problems.
25
~
l
i .
. *~
85 1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: How many power plants did, 2 the country have on line when that plant went on line?
3 COMMISSIONER'ASSELSTINE: Not very many.
4 MR. STELLO: A couple. Well, they had -- Indian 5 Point 1, Big Rock --
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yankee.
7 MR. STELLO: Yankee, Lacross --
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Dresden.
9 MR. STELLO: Humbolt Bay, Dresden-1.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Less than ten?
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
12 MR. STELLO: Probably on the order'of about a dozen
!;( 13 and you are reaching way back.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Quick question for NRR.
15 This combined feedwater safety injection system, what is your 16 thinking about that in terms of. reliability, maintainability?
l 17 Are you real comfortable with that or is that something that 18 for the long term operability of the plant, you think ought to 19 get some attention er am I over reacting on that one?
20 (At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner 21 Roberts exited the meeting.)
l i 22 MR. DUDLEY: As the licensee stated, they have an 23 improvement to this system in their integrated living 24 schedule. We in the past reviewed a submittal that the
- 25 licensee said that they were going to provide a separate . - .-
~
l
,...__._-y. , , . , , , _ . , , , _._..__,_..,r.__ . . , , _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ . . , . , _ _ , _ . . . _ , , . . . - . - , _ , , .-_r_- , _ _ , _-.,
.* 86 O
1 feedwater and a separate safety injection system and we j 2 haven't been informed otherwise than that.
r 3 So I guess we are waiting for the licensee to 4 provide us with the further information and that will be done 5 in accordance with the integrated living schedule.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Which would be next 7 refueling outage, is that right? I think that is what they 8 said.
9 MR. DUDLEY: Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, all right. This 11 common header problem for the steam generators, I realize you 12 have looked at it in terms of dose rates and everything, you
( 13 don't.think that is unacceptable, but is there a way to fix it I 14 in terms of an easy way to fix it or not?'
15 ,
MR. STELLO: Is there a way to fix it? Yec.
. 16 Anything you fix in a nuclear power plant, I wouldn't put in 17 the easy category. '
i 18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is this something that is 19 great, to have all steam generators hooked together so that 20 they all --
21 MR. STELLO: I think the only way you get an answer i
22 to that question is to ask what it would take to do that but I 23 don't know that we know that answer. It is piping all over, 24 an awful lot of design work has to go into it and I don't know 25 what the pros and cons are so I think it is clearly, yes, you --
~
~
m e-wrww-- , - , -vw,w w -----r-,w - w---wy-- --*m-
87 1 can do it. A judgment would have to wait until someone sat .
2 down and thought a lot more about it.
3 I don't think I would put anything in th'at " easy" l 4 category though.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I thought it wasn't all 5 con. There were some pros about that design, too and I don't 7 remember well enough. Isn't that true?
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Are there advantages to
- 9 having all steam generators depressurize at once?
10 MR. DUDLEY: One thing that I would like to add is 11 that the addition of these new check valves inside containment .
2
- 12. reduced the length of the feedwater line that could break and 13 be susceptible to causing this blow down. It doesn't affect s
14 the steam lines though.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I would just make the 17 comment that I think Jim has made from time to time in the l 18- past. Especially in these older plants but in all of ou 19 plants we focus or at least have focused so much in this l
20 agency on improving the hardware design and then putting it in 21 and in the end it doesn't matter how good the design is and 1
22 how much you put in if it is not maintained and in fact, that 23 has been the key to every single serious incident we have had 24 in the last year or so.
~
25 If you maintain the plant, even these older plants - -
- --,, , -, , .,__,,.,e,, - - ,-
.. 88 1 are going to treat.you pretty well. If you don't maintain-the
,-m
. 2 newest plants, they aren't going to treat you well. So that 3 is really what it comes down to it seems to me.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: that is true although you 5 do get design vulnerabilities that creep into those things and 6 , make things more difficult or more complicated.
7 I have one other quick question. I was just 8 reminded that a person in the surrounding community had 9 written to me'and raised a concern about the water level 10 instrumentation for the plant and the schedule for that.
11 Could you tell me something about when that is going /
12 to be installed? ~
~4 "
( 13' MR. STELLO: That question was asked of the licensee
\
14 and he answered that. He talked about --
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right. I am sorry.
- 16 MR. STELLO: -- the variation -- do you remember?
17 He talked about not having the taps for the Westinghouse j 18 system, the difficulty in using the CE system under the heated 19 thermocouple.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: All right.
21 MR. STELLO: Same answer.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:- All right. Do they have a 23 schedule? I can just check the transcript to make sure.
, 24 MR. STELLO: Well, Ken is back there? What was the 25 schedule? I thought I heard him say you were going to submit -
~
l_ - , _ . . _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ _
.. 89 1 that the end* of this month.
- 2. COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Jim, do you have any comment on 4 the restart? ,
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The only comment I have is 6 I think that this was a serious enough event that I continue 7 to believe as I had indicated several weeks ago that I think
.8 the Commission ought to vote on this.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Now or at some other time?
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I would say at the point r
11 where Jack and NRR and IE are satisfied that everything that 12 needs to be done has been done and I get the impression they i
[ .13 are not quite at that point yet.
14 MR. MARTIN: No. We have another couple of weeks of 1 15 things to check out. -
i 16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I am encouraged by what is 17 going on. I think some of these programs are quite good and 18 forward looking but my own personal view is that I think the 19 Commission ought to say, "yes" and we ought to say it at the 20 point where the staff is satisfied.that everything that needs e 21 to be done has been done and that is the view I expressed a 22 few weeks ago.
- 23' CHAIRMAN PALLADINO
- Fred, at least comment on the 24- last question if no other.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: The last question being?. --
, v.,-----.m-.-e, - - - - - - - - - ,-n , - .. - - - - - , , - - . - , - - - - - , ~ - - - - - . . , - - , - . . . - , ---n- ... - - ,- - - - ,-
,. - 90 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The issue of startup and 2 Commission further involvement in this.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, I want to hear what 4 the staff has to say.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And you would like to come back 6 and vote.
N 7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Call it negative consent or 8 positive consent. Jim has a right to ask for that. It 9 doesn't matter to me.
10' CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I am trying to ask, eventually, 11 you know, I have to have a majority to do something.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: My vote right now is I want
- 13 to hear what staff has to say and since they haven't told us 14 yet whether they think the plant is ready, then I am reserving 15 judgment.
I 16 MR. STELLO: Excuse me. We did say --
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, indeed.
18
- MR. STELLO
- We do have some more inspections and 19 there are a few more things that have to be done at the 20 plant. When those are finished, we are satisfied it is okay 21 to start up.
( 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. He said that and that is i
l 23 why I made the statement that I did.
24 MR. STELLO: There is nothing more that we are
' ~
- 25 requiring. It is some more inspections that we have planned- -
~
.* 91 1 that we are going to do and I think Jack has indicated he
.~
, 2 wants physically to see the plant himself which he intends to 3 do and the licenses told you a couple of things that they were
, 4 going to. finish up.
5 When those are done, we are prepared to let them 6' start up.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: When those are done. '
8 MR. STELLO: When they are finished.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: All right. Why don't you go 10 do that and then we will decide.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So you are saying that you want 12 to -- -
4 13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Look, Joe --
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I am just asking you --
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Jim has asked for a vote and i
16 if he wants a vote, let's have a vote. That is the way we run 17 this place. If he wants a vote, he gets it. He has 18 essentially said that he wants to convert what would be a 15 negative consent into a positive vote and that is what we do.
l 20 It seems to me it is straight forward.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But he doesn't want to do it 22 today. It is the same question I have asked several times.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I think that is what he i
24 said.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: that's right. - -
~
e
, - - -r ,- w.*_ - - - * . - - - - . --m%--,--e, .-- - - - - - ,-+-m-y--w-,--y--,e,,--,--.--- .w--..me- ,,.-m------v y-m ---.+, -,, - , ,
.* 92
-1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Then let's do it.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What, today or in the future?
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It is very simple.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Jim, what'was your proposal?
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I would do.it when Jack is 6 finished what he thinks needs to be done. That is the point 7 at which I would do it.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That is our rule.
9 Otherwise, it is negative consent. He has asked that there be i
10 a vote and we should have a vote.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, but the question was also 12 when and we could vote on w'hether or not de have a vote today
( 13 or some other time as well. We may not decide we want to take 14 that vote today but let me hear from others. Lando.
15 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Just one comment. I think the 16 material condition review program is an excellent program as I l 17 understand it and certainly you should follow through with
. 18 that.
19 I also think the area monitoring program is an 20 excellent program and you should follow through on that, too.
21 I have seen too many programs in visits to plants that seem to i 22 be excellent in concept but execution gets lost somewhere I
t 23 along the line and they don't turn out to be all that they
! 24 were supposed to be so follow through is important.
l 25 They sound like excellent programs but it is.a -
i
.- - . , _ _ , , , ~ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ _ _ _ _ ~ _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ __
.. 93 1 commitment to follow through that is important.
2 As far as the startup is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I 3 don't think there is a great issue here myself. Certainly I 4 would agree with my fellow Commissioners that we ought to be l 1
5 satisfied, that the staff ought to be satisfied. When the l 6 staff is fully satisfied as the EDO has expressed here, then I 7 am satisfied.
8 I don't need any further vote. I certainly want to 9 know that the EDO is satisfied.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I had indicated my proposal was 11 that he tell us when he is ready and that presumes he is
)
12 satisfies and inform the Commission. Now 1 gather there is a 13
[~ feeling that at that time we ought to vote to see if we are 14 ready.
j 15 COMMISSIONER ZECH: But it is a small point as far 16 as I am concerned. I think we are all saying the same 17 thing. If they want a vote, I have no problem in voting .
18 later.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I have no problem either --
i 20 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Except the matter of being 21 satisfied that the staff --
i 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: -- except no, I might not be 23 here. That might give me a problem.
24 COMMISSIONER ZECH: --that the staff is fully 25 satisfied. . -
~
=
5
. -- 94 1 . COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: You might be lucky.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. Let's say this. .The 3 mechanics will work out.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
5 (At this point in the proceedings, Commissioner 6 Roberts re-enters the meeting.)
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We don't have to take the time 8 to do it now.
9 ' COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think we have a pretty good i
11 flavor that we are pleased to see t'he progress made. We want 12 to make sure that the staff is satisfied.' When the staff is 13 satisfied, we want to hear that and then I presume we will 14 take a vote at that time.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But I will consult each of you -
17 separately.
I 18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Fine. All right.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think the next step is 21 for the staff to finish the remaining work that needs to be 22 done, tell us then that they are satisfied that everything 23 that needs to be done has-been done~and then we can indicate 24 our views at that time.
25 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I certainly agree with that.- --
~
~
95 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good.
fr
( -- 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. I think we have 3 covered all what we came to cover so let me thank you all but l l
4 let me inform my follow commissioners that in about ten 5 minutes we ought to do agenda planning.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Sure. Good.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. We will stand 8 adjourned. Thank you.
9 (Whereupon, at 4:05 o' clock p.m., the above-entitled 10 Commission meeting was adjourned, to reconvene at the Call of 11 the Chair.)
12 -
l 13 14 i 15 j 16 17 k
18 i
19 20 21 22 .
23 24 25 _.
, , ,_,.---s --- w. . . ~- - - . - - . . . . , - , . - _ . - - - - . - . - _ _ , ---. , . . . . , , - _,
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: Briefing on Restart of San Onofre-1 (Public Meeting) 8 PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, June 12, 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 se 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 18 D ihLLb--- - h--' arid #.---
Marilynn M. Nations 20 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23 24 25 , ,
l .
1
- G#M#tiG
,, SCHEDULING NOTES
.l TITLE: BRIEFING ON RESTART OF SAN ONOFRE-1 SCHEDULED: 2:00 P.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1986 (OPEN)
DURATION: APPROX l-1/2 HRS AGENDA: 1. LICENSEE PRESEATATION 20 MINS (SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON)
- 2. INTRODUCTION (REGION V) 5 MINS
- 3. EVALUATION OF CHECK VALVE 15 MINS PROBLEMS (IE) 4 EVALUATION OF PLANT DESIGN (NRR) 20 MINS
- 5.
SUMMARY
OF REGION V INSPECTION 5 MINS ACTIVITY (REGION V)
~
PARTICIPANTS: LICENSEE
- DAVID FOGERTY EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT ,
SOUTHERH CALIFORNIA EDISON
- K. BASKIN VICE PRESIDENT FOR NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SAFETY 8 LICENSitiG SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON -
- M. MEDFORD MANAGER OF NUCLEAR SAFETY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON REGION V
- J. MARTIN 1E - E. MERSCH0FF NRR - R. DVDLEY 6 M 9
3 i
l JUNE 12,1986
- PRESENTATION TO THE -
NRC COMMISSIONERS .
I l
4
- NOVEMBER 21, 1985 i
l LOSS OF POWER /
l l WATER HAMMER EVENT '
-l SAN ONOFRE UNIT 1 9
? -
4 l PREFACE l .
- Water Hammer Event Was Very significant i
!
- SCE Has implemented Major Plant Improvements i
j
- SCE Has implemented Programmatic Changes j to Enhance Operation
- The Material Conditi.on Review Program Verified i
Plant Condition 2 .
l i
i AGENDA t
Preface- . David J. Fogarty l
l . Introduction Kenneth P. Baskin l
Outage Overview Mark O. Medford
! Water Hammer Corrective Mark. O. Medford Actions i
t Overall Summary Kenneth P. Baskin 4
l 3 -
4 4
I q
INTRODUCTION l
- Current Outage involved Major Activities i .
- Water Hammer Event Was Very Significant
- Careful Attention, Study and Corrective
! Actions Have Been Taken
- Causes of the Event Have Been Identified and Corrected by Design and Program .
Changes
- Material Condition Programs Have Been Implemented
~~
4 8
! t i
MAJOR OUTAGE ACTIVITIES
- Water Hammer Event Repairs and Upgrades '
Feedwater Line Electrical System
~
l Miscellaneous Design Changes j
Programmatic Changes
,
- Fire Protection Installation of Dedicated Diesel Generator i -
Third Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Full 10 CFR 50 Appendix R Implementation - -
l
- Environmental Qualification 90 Components Replaced / Upgraded l
Full implementation 4
5
1 i
- I I
4 . -
- MAJOR OUTAGE ACTIVITIES ~
(CONTINUED)
- Seismic Upgrades -
l .67g Upgrade Program Complete
- Diesel Generators .
Teardowns and inspections -
. - 430 Man-Months 6
O e
i ,
MAJOR EVENT RELATED ISSUES
~
[
u Check Valves l
Failure to Recognize Precursor Events
- ELECTRICAL SYSTEM Failure of 4 KV Feeder Cable from Auxiliary Transformer "C" .
Failure of Automatic Breaker Sequencer to Complete Cycle Ground Not Quickly. Isolated
. 7
l-1 I
i il i CORRECTIVE ACTIONS l
- Design Changes i
i
- Program Changes .
1 4
1 I
)
1 I
4
] 8 ,
I ,
j i 4
1 i
PLANT MODIFICATIONS l >
- Feedwater System Modifications New Improved Ch.eck Values
- FCV Closure Modification" Add Redundant Feed Line Check Values *
" Complete Prior to Startup 9
t i
[ PLANT MODIFICATIONS
. (Continued) .
i
- Electrical System Modifications Replace All Transformors to 4-KV Bus
! Cabling
- l -
Protect 4-KV Cabling from Heat Sources
- Correct Generator Overspeed Trip Design , 3 i
Inadequacy
- Provide a Second immediate Access Offsite Power Source
- Complete Prior to Startup i
. 10
9 i
i s
- PLANT MODIFICATIONS l
(Continued) '
l
- Other Modifications' Eliminate Spurious " Red Phone" Ringing i on LOP
- l -
Correct Technical Support Center j Computer Unavailability During LOP l
DC Control Room Clock * .
l Install Steam Generator Blowdown
- Isolation * '
Install S+eam Generator Blowdown
! Indication in Control Room
- Eliminate Spurious Safety injection Signal (
l on LOP
- l l .
!* 11 l
i I 1 l e i
1 l ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS
- Modify LOVATS to Allow for Onsite or j Offsite Power Restoration Option '
- Vital Bus No. 4 Power Supply 4
l
- ADD "4160V Bus Sources Paralleled" Alarm !
i .
l-l i
~~
, 12
} .
4 I
.I PROGRAM. CHANGES
! PROCEDURES AND TRAINING
- ,
- Guidance to Address Plant Conditions Which Occured During the Event
!
- Guidance to Address Performing Ground Isolation 1
i i
- Guidance to Formalize NRC Notification 13 .
I i
i 4 .
i I .
! PROGRAM CHANGES I Personnel Performance .
1
- Increase Operator Experience in Trouble-l 4
Shooting and Manipulation of Plant Electrical l Systems i
l
- Increase Effectiveness of STA in Responding l to Abnormal, Non-Emergency Plant Conditions !
j
- Independent Consultant Participation in Onsite i
Review Committee l
14 r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l -
c .
i.
! MATERIAL CONDITION REVIEW i PROGRAM '
i .
l
- OBJECTIVE: '
! Assure Reliability of System Operation
! Upon Return to Service
!
- Systems in Which . Material Failures Could Lead to Challenges of Safety Systems
!
- Twenty-Six Safety and Non-Safety Related j Systems i .
l
- MCRP Program Steps:
Material Identification Team inspections '
Evaluation Panel Reviews 15 '
i 3
I
~
J l
l AREA MONITORING PROGRAM l
l
- OBJECTIVE:
i Maintain a High Material Condition Standard l in Operation to Provide an Appropriate
! Physical Context for All Work i
- Safety and Non-Safety Related Systems
- AMP Program Steps:
Divide Plant into Areas Monitor / Evaluate Effectiveness of Work Processes Revise Existing Work Processes l
i ,
t i .
i
! OVERALL
SUMMARY
l
- Major Plant Improvements Have Been Accomplished During This Outage l
l i
- Program Changes to Enhance Plant Operation Have Been Implemented
- Programs Have Been implemented to Ensure a High Plant Material Condition g .
^
l .
17 .
~
JUNE 12, 1986 PRESENTATION TO THE NRC COMMISSIONERS -
NOVEMBER 21, 1985 LOSS OF POWER /W',TER HAMMER EVENT SAN ON0FRE UNIT 1 f
~
4
PREFACE ,
O WATER HAMMER EVENT WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT 0
SCE HAs IMPLEMENTED MAJOR PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
. ~
j 0 SCE HAS IMPLEMENTED PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES TO ENHANCE OPERATION 0 THE MATERIAL CONDITION-REVIEW PROGRAM VERIFIED PLANT CONDITION i
g om de e
+--e- , , - , , - , , - - , - -- . e ,r w-
AGENDA-PREFACE DAVID J. FOGARTY INTRODUCTION KENNETH P. BASKIN 1
OUTAGE OVERVIEW MARK 0. MEDFORD 5
WATER HAMMER CORRECTIVE ACTIONS M'RK A 0. MEDFORD OVERALL
SUMMARY
KENNETH P. BASKIN
- ~
9 s , ,.--,---n, , , - - - - - , . - - . ~ . - - , , - ---,,-n~ - - ~ , - - . - . - - -, , - - - - -- , - , ,,, . , , , , , , , -
l l
l INTRODUCTION O CURRENT OUTAGE INVOLVED MAJOR ACTIVITIES 0 WATER HAMMER EVENT WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT O CAREFUL ATTENTION, STUDY AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN 0 CAUSES OF THE EVENT HAVE BEEN IDENT!'FIED AND CORRECTED BY DESIGN AND PROGRAM CHANGES O MATERIAL CONDITION PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED 4
e me we 4
m
, -- , e - .- - . ~ ., - - - - - - , -,- - , . . - - - . . . , - , , . , . - - - , - - ..- -, , . , ~, -
~~
4 MAJOR OUTAGE ACTIVITIES 0 WATER HAMMER EVENT REPAIRS AND UPGRADES FEEDWATER LINE -
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN CHANGES PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES 0 FIRE PROTECTION INSTALLATION OF DEDICATED DIESEL GENERATOR THIRD AUXILIARY FEEDWATER PUMP' FULL 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX R IMPLEMENTATION O ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION 90 COMPONENTS REPLACED / UPGRADED FULL IMPLEMENTATION l
~
a ~ r - , -- - - , -
MAJOR OUTAGE ACTIVITIES (CONTINUED) a 0 SEISMIC UPGRADES
.67G UPGRADE PROGRAM COMPLETE O DIESEL GENERATORS TEARDOWNS AND INSPECTIONS ~
480 MAN-MONTHS 4
l -
{ BRD:6875F f
i l
~
I
MAJOR EVENT RELATED ISSUES 0 FEEDWATER SYSTEM FAILURE OF FIVE FEEDWATER , SYSTEM CHECK VALVES FAILURETORECOGNIZEPRECURSORkVENTS O ELECTRICAL SYSTEM FAILURE OF 4 KV FEEDER CABLE FROM AUXILIARY TRANSFORMER "C" .
FAILURE OF AUTOMATIC BREAKER SEQUFNCER TO COMPLETE CYCLE GROUND NOT QUICKLY ISOLATED i
f e 1
- - . - . . .,r.._ _ . - , - - - - . - - . . , . . ~,.,.,--._--_-..y -
-m.c,., rm, , , ., ..., ,__-- ,,--,,,---,-,-.--,,..y, . -%,- .--.-
O O
e CORRECTIVE ACTIONS O DESIGN CHANGES 0 PROGRAM CHANGES e ce e 9
A
PLANT MODIFICATIONS O FEEDWATER SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
/- 'NEW IMPROVED CHECK VALVES *
/- FCV CLOSURE MODIFICATION *
/- ADD REDUNDANT FEED LINE CHECK VALVES *
- COMPLETE PRIOR TO STARTUP p ee =
4
. _ _ _ __,m _
PLANT MODIFICATIONS (CONTINUED) 1 0 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
/- REPLACE ALL TRANSFORMERS TO 4 KV BUS CABLING *
/- PROTECT 4 KV CABLING FROM HEAT SOURCES *
/- CORRECT GENERATOR OVERSPEED TRIP DESIGN INADEQUACY
- PROVIDE A SECOND IMMEDIATE ACCESS OFFSITE POWER SOURCE
- COMPLETE PRIOR TO STARTUP
~
6 4
O-PLANT MODIFICATIONS (CONTINUED) 0 OTHER MODIFICATIONS gv# -
ELIMINATE SPURIOUS " RED PHONE" RINGING ON LOP
- CORRECT TECHNICAL SUPPORT CENTER COMPUTER UNAVAILABILITY DURING LOP -
gpe - DC CONTROL ROOM CLOCK
- gpf -
INSTALL STEAM GENERATOR BLOWDOWN ISOLATION ON LOP' INSTALL STEAM GENERATOR BLOWDOWN INDICATION IN CONTROL ROOM" gv# - ELIMINATE SPURIOUS SAFETY INJECTION SIGNAL ON LOP *
- COMPLETE PRIOR TO STARTUP
~
5
ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS -
V0 MODIFY LOVATS TO ALLOW FOR ONSITE OR OFFSITE POWER RESTORATION OPTION .
O VITAL BUS No. 4 POWER SUPPLY
/ 0 ADD "4160b BUS SOURCES PARALLELED" ALARM f
~
l l
L
e 0
PROGRAM CHANGES PROCEDURES AND TRAINING O GUIDANCE TO ADDRESS PLANT CONDITIONS WHICH OCCURRED DURING THE EVENT 0 GUIDANCE TO ADDRESS PERFORMING GROUND ISOLATION 0 GUIDANCE TO FORMALIZE NRC NOTIFICATION I
i 3
1
, , ~ - ,
9 PROGRAM CHANGES PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE
-0 INCREASE OPERATOR EXPERIENCE IN TROUBLESHOOTING AND MANIPULATION OF PLANT ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
~
0* INCRFASE EFFECTIVENESS OF STA IN RESPONDING TO ABNORMAL, NON-EMERGENCY PLANT CONDITIONS 0 INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT PARTICIPATION IN ONSITE REVIEW COMMITTEE
~
4
,- -- m. , - - . .._-,wm,w *y +,.. .--, ,, .m-_....y, wme.- ,i--_ ~,yw.y -,___ ,,-.-.
MATERIAL CONDITION REVIEW PROGRAM 0 OBJECTIVE:
ASSURE RELIAB.ILITY OF SYSTEM OPERATION UPON RETURN TO SERVICE O SYSTEMS IN WHICH MATERIAL FAILURES COULD, LEAD TO CHALLENGES OF SAFETY SYSTEMS 0 TWENTY-SIX SAFETY AND NON-SAFETY RELATED SYSTEMS O MCRP PROGRAM STEPS: .
MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION TEAM INSPECTIONS EVALUATION PANEL REVIEWS
~
9
^
O 9
s AREA MONIl0 RING PROGRAM 0 OBJECTIVE:
MAINTAIN A ilIGH MATERIAL CONDITION STANDARD IN OPERATION TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATF PHYSICAL CONTEXT FOR ALL WORK
. ~
. O SAFETY AND NON-SAFETY RELATED SYSTEMS 0 AMP PROGRAM STEPS:
DIVIDE PLANT INTO AREAS MONITOR / EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS OF WORK PROCESSES REVISE EXISTING WORK PROCESSES e w %.
e
.x
- i e l
. c l OVERALL
SUMMARY
s O MAJOR PLANT IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED DURING THIS OUTAGE 0 PROGRAM CHANGES TO ENHANCE PLANT OPERATIQ,N HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED 0 PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED T0' ENSURE A HIGH PLANT MATERIAL CONDITION c
i i f
s
\
g.,
' ~
, e ,
'c~
's . __
h h )
9/35 Documnt (bntrol Desk, 016 Phillips j 3:; TPREMlTIAL 'IO: / /
Tl -
l s: I We Public Documnt Ibom h
t AIVNJOD CDPY 'IO: / /
I
- cc: C&R f w/attachs. j
$ FPOM: SECY OPS BRANCl{ (w/o SECY y 3:
- papers) {
25 Attached are copies of a Cbrrmission rneeting transcript (s) and related rrecting f docunent(s) . 'Ihey are being forwmied for entry on the Inily Accession List ;
l
- > i and placanent in the Public Document Focm. tb other distribution is requested l f
$! or requ2. red. Existing DCS identification nurrbers are listed on the individual p M , documents wherever known.
Meeting
Title:
M c\ 6n ce4 M o -
hn re - \ F
-g 4 . j h
6 Meeting Date: L lhO--
Open X Closed DCS Copies !
6 (1 of each checked) {
Iten
Description:
Copies )
Advanced Original my Duplicate; To PDR , Document be Duo
- Conv* [
1 1
fg
- 1. TRANSCRIPT ,
h ..
hhen checked, DCS should send a ,
F
[
$! copy of this tyanscript to the ,
% LPDR for: (L)i L)(AN g uhts ,
b Aik t% $0ke.6
) *
- 2. ,
- g
=
- 3. , j
- s
- f
. t
- 4. .
j
- [
?
4l! (PDR is advanced one copy of each docurrent, *
- Verify if in DCS, ard two of each SEEY paper.)
- Change to "PDR Available."
t E
- MSM0WNWWNWWWIYlYlYlYlYlYlYlYlYlElYlYlYlhhlYlYIYlYlhhlYlYlYlYlYI$