ML20203H419
| ML20203H419 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8604290492 | |
| Download: ML20203H419 (86) | |
Text
,
I
, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Discussion /Possible Vote on Full Power .
Operating License for Palo Verde-2 (Public Meeting)
Docket No.
[
. Location: Washington, D. C.
Date: Wednesday, April 23, 1986 Pages: 1 - g7 8604290492 860423 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR 1
,([ , ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES l
O Court Reporters 1625 I St., N.W.
- - - . r_. . z . n n,
t .
, L I
f 4
1 D i SCLA I M ER 2
3 4
5 6 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 8 4/23/86 . In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9 N.W., Washington, D.C. The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation, This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.
13 The teanscript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination o: beliefs, No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement r- 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorize.
22 23 24 25
'I
$ 1 l' .
UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-3 ---
4 DISCUSSION /POSSIBLE VOTE ON FULL POWER 5 OPERATING LICENSE FOR PALO VERDE-2 6 .
7 PUBLIC MEETING 8 ---
9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 ; Room 1130 11 1717 "H" Street, N.W.
12 Washington, D.C.
. -13 ,
14 Wednesday, April 23, 1986 15 16 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 17 notice, at 10:12 o' clock a.m., NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, Chairman .
18 of the Commission, presiding.
19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: :
20 NUNZIO J. PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 21- THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 22 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission 23 LANDO W. ZECH, JR., Member of the Commission 24 25 ,
-i
p '
,o. .
- t .. 2 l' STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
2 S. CHILK 3 R. LEVI 4 - D. EISENHUT.
.5' F. MIRAGLIA 6 J. CREWS 7 M. LICITRA 8 E. REIS 9 E. VANBRUNT 10 J. HAYNES 11 12 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
13 T. MARSH
.14 15 16
- , 17 18 19 20 21
-22 23 24 25
,-n, _
,e , , - - - ,,.-,,v. g -
w-, o e - -
p -
j '
3; 3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Good morning, ladies and 3 gentlemen. Commissioner Bernthal has been detained but will 4 join us soon. Commissioner Asselstine is on foreign travel 5 and won't be able to join us today.
6 The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss and 7 decide on whether or not a full power license shall be granted 8- 'for the second Palo Verde nuclear power plant. On December 9, 9 1985, the NRC issued a license for the Palo Verde Unit 2 10 authorizing fuel load pre-criticality testing and low power 11 operation to power levels up to five percent of full power.
12 Palo. Verde 2 is the second of three nuclear plants 13 located at the same site outside Phoenix, Arizona.- About ten 14 months ago the Arizona Public Service Company received a full 15 power license for Palo Verde Unit 1.
16 The staff has prepared a presentation and I 17 understand that other members of the NRC staff as well as 18 representatives of the Arizona Public Service Company are 19 available to answer any questions we might have.
20 At the conclusion of the discussions, I intend to 21 poll the other commissioners on whether or not we should 22 authorize the staff to issue a Palo Verde 2 full power 23 license.
24 I understand that members of the Region V office and 25 the senior resident inspector of Palo Verde will be listening
i 4 1 in on the phone.
2 Do any.other commissioners have any opening remarks 3 at this time?
4 (No response.)
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I should announce that 6 Commissioner Roberts has to leave at.11:45, so I would like to 7 work as expeuitiously as we can. Thank you. Let me now turn 8 the meeting over to Mr. Eisenhut.
9 (SLIDE. )
10 MR. EISENHUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a 11 short summary briefing we will give you today. This is as you 12 pointed out the second Palo Verde unit to be reviewed by the 13 Commission. The first unit goes back, I believe it got its 14 license in 1984. It had been delayed for quite some time 15 because of pump problems and a number of difficulties with a t
. li6 first-of-a-kind plant.
17 This is a CESSAR 80 facility standard plant. When la you all go out to the facility or have gone out, I am sure you 19 have recognized that considerable changes have occurred over 20 the last few years.
21 One of the most major ones that has occurred is the 22 utility has strengthened its management quite a bit, his 23 corporate management, his upper senior management, and, in 24 fact, one of the strong features we see at this point is that 25 he has made major improvements in that area.
F
-f 5' ,
1 However, recognizing that his second unit is now-
$ 2' starting to start up and his third unit is about a year 3 behind, h'e will be in sort of the rarefied atmosphere of three 4 unit sites-which historically are the ones that have ended up
, 5 in~ difficulty.
6 We have. impressed that upon the utility as time has 7 gone on and I think he recognizes that and understands that an '
8 area that he continues to-have to improve in is this 9 management capability'for operations of a three-unit station-now with the completion of the construction phase.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Aren't they under some 12 incentive program to try to get Palo Verde 3 constructed 13 before some deadline?
14 MR. EISENHUT: There was an incentive program for 15 unit 1, getting unit 1 starting up. I am not aware of any on 16 unit 3. Perhaps you may want to ask that question to the 17 utility.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, we can ask them.
19- MR. EISENHUT: I do know that unit 3 typically 20 . historically has been running about a year behind unit 2 and
.21 it looks like that is the schedule that we think is attainable 22 and they have been spaced out deliberately from inception. I 23 think from way back originally, they were all scheduled a year 24 apart.
25 Mr. Chairman, today with me is Frank Miraglia, the
(
- --- ,- - , _ , , , . ----,--.-,e, -.. .- .
L
, 6 11 division' director and the project manager, Manny Licitra, as 2 well as Jess crews who is representing the regional staff. We 3 will-go through a short briefing here today.
4 I would propose that we skip through, we had a few 5 -introductory slides in the beginning about the site location, 6 the ownership of_the utility, et cetera. They are there for 7 completeness. However, since we have gone through this 8 before, we probably don't need to do that and I would propose 9 that we go on to discuss slide five, the selected issues.
10 (SLIDE. )
11 MR. EISENHUT: I will turn it over now to Frank 12 Miraglia.
13 MR. MIRAGLIA: Thank you. Twoissuesofpkrticular 14 interest that we thought we would discuss with the Commission l$ tuday is the issue on depressurization capability and the 16 issue ot Arizona Nuclear Power organization. Darrell has 17 briefly mentioned some of that.
18 May I have slide six, plea 9?
19 (SLIDE.)
20 MR. MIRAGLIA: The depressurization issue is one 21 that stems from earlier Commission consideration on plants and 22 facilities without PORVs. The issue first came up in the San 23 Onofre reviews and in discussions of that issue, it was 24 decided that that issue would be considered in the resolution 25 of unresolved safety issue A-45.
i E '
i *
. i- 7 . .
- l. That matter has been discussed wit'h the,ACRS and 2 they had concurred in that' judgment.. In September of 1985,
_3 .there was an event at Palo Verde in preparation to do a load 4 rejection test that indicated that there was some single ,
5' failure vulnerabilities in their auxiliary pressurizdr spray.
6 As a result of that event, staff followed up on that 7 issue - with a 50.54 (f) letter to determine what the 8 depressurization capabilities at Palo Verde 1 and 2 were. 'As 9 .a result of that follow-up, the utility agreed to certain 10 compensatory measures to allcw the re-start of unit 1 and 11 committed to certain design hardware changes and. upgrades at
- 12. that facility to improve the depressurization capability.
13 All of the hardware modifications have been made'in-14 unit 2. The unit 1 facility is_in a maintenance outage now f 15 and the similar modifications are being made at unit 1.
16 The resolution of the issue has been satisfactory to 17 the staff and we feel that the unit has demonstrated adequate
, 18 'depressurization capability pending the resolution of issue 19 A-45.
4 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do they have pressurizer vent?
21 MR. MIRAGLIA: Yes. They do have a pressurizer vent 22 'and they have --
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What is the nature of it? Is 24 it like a POW 1?
25 MR. MIRAGLIA: No, sir. It is a small vent line
?
y' 8 1 that can be operated remotely and they have provided an 2 analysis which would show that the venting capability through 3 that line is sufficient for them to depressurize the unit and 4 get on injection cooling.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: How does it differ from a 6 PORV? Does it have a block valve? -
7 MR. MIRAGLIA: We have a staff member here who can 8 describe that system, Tad Marsh. Tad, would you like to 9
9 describe that system.
10 MR. MARSH: Yes. I am Tad Ma,rsh from the staff.
11 The RCS vent system from the pressurizer is a small three 12 quarter inch line and once it leaves the pressurizer, it then 13 branches off into two three-quarter inch slides each of which 14 has two block valves in it which then after those two branch 15 1.nes come together, it then vents into the containment system 16 or to the pressurizer relief tank.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is the line big enough to do i
18 the depressurization that you are seeking?
19 MR. MARSH: Yes, it is.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What would a PORV size be 21 approximately?
22 'MR. MARSH: The typical power operator relief valve, 23 one which would provide a complete system depressurization 24 capability, would be much larger; for example, a one and 25 three-quarter inch diameter line.
.o 7
9 ;
1 The vent system which is used at Palo Verde is 2 enough to depressurize the pressurizer to the extent that you 3 can regain the pressurizer level and then throttle safety 4 injection during a tube rupture which would then provide 5 depressurization capability.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do I understand that the 7 injection pumps go in at 1800 psi?
8 MR. MARSH: That's right. The shut off head for the 9 safety injection pumps are about 1780 pounds.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So now this vent line has to be 11 brought into play in order for those pumps to be able to 12 charge into the system under certain circumstances?
13 MR. MARSH: No, sir. The system will depressurize 14 by itself --
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It will?
16 MR. MARSH: -- during a steam generator tube 17 rupture.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Oh.
19 MR. MARSH: The scenario of interest, the accident 20 that is being mitigated by depressurization is a tube rupture 21 event.
22 CHAIRMAN PALIADINO: How about just loss of the 23 normal heat sink process?
24 MR. MARSH: During a loss of the normal heat sink, 25 you would not have to rely on depressurization system. If you
.?
7 10
'l' lost the turbine, another scenario of interest is the reactor 2 systems branch' position 5-1 which is the sustained loss of 3 offsite power. In that scenario you are allowed to use the 4 auxiliary pressurizer spray system.
5 The position that we have let's you take certain 6 manual actions outside of the control room to account for.any 7 -potential single failures. In that situation the system is 8 available to you. -
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So what is the circumstance 10 under which you would use the vent?
11 MR. MARSH: You would use the reactor coolant system 12 vent system from the pressurizer during a. steam generator tube 13 rupture event, an accident. During that situation the system 14 would first depressurize down to the point where the safety
- 15. injection system would inject into the system.
16 (Commissioner Bernthal enters the meeting.)
17 CHATRMAN PALLADINO: You say this is automatic. How 18 does that work?
19 MR. MARSH: During a steam generator tube rupture 20 event which is in essence a small break loss of coolant 21 accident to the steam generator, system pressure drops down to 22 a point of a safety injection actuation, a scran and a safety 23 injection actuation.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are you saying it drops due to 25 the leak into the safety injection system?
W :'
11 1 MR. MARSH: Yes, sir. Once the safety injection 2 system gets actuated, the safety injection pumps start and 3 inject coolant into the system to recover pressurizer level 4 and to make sure that the core is adequataly cooled.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Then why did we put the vent 6 in?
7 MR. MARSH: The vent system was for inadequate core 8 cooling scenarios.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: For what?
10 MR. MARSH: Inadequate core cooling situations, post 11 TMI-2 concern to vent non-condensable gases from the system.
12 The vent system was not installed specifically for this 13 scenario.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. The staff is all 15 satisfied that the system does the job?
16 MR. MARSH: Yes, sir.
17 CMAIRMAN PALLADINO: Despite the experience we have 18 had?
19 MR. MARSH: That is correct, sir.
20 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Was this a single failure issue 21 that you are talking about or is that something different?
22 MR. MARSH: No. The single failure issue that we 23 refer to in the slide was the single failure we found earlier, 24 in the earlier review.
25 COMMISSIONER ZECH: How was that resolved? -
m 1
12 1 MR. MARSH: That was resolved by-installing a second
- 2. downstream isolation valve in a loop charging line.- The way 3 the system is configured, the charging pumps discharge is connected by a common header which then penetrates containment
~
4
, 5 and the system branches off into two lines. One goes to the 6 top of the pressurizer with the auxiliary pressurizar spray 7- system. The other line is the loop charging line. That is 8 'the normal line that you use the charging pumps to inject 9 coolant into the primary for make-up.
10 At that point there was only one isolation valve in 11 that line. In order to make sure that you got the flow that 12 you needed up.to the top of the pressurizer for spray, they 13 would close that one valve. That valve was subject to single 14 failure. That means if it couldn't close, you couldn't 15 guarantee you would get the right flow to the top of the 16 pressurizer.
17 So they installed a second valve downstream of that 18 so that if one valve did not close the second one could be 19 closed to guarantee that you would get the right flow.
20 COMMISSIONER ZECH: So that resolves that issue?
21 MR. MARSH: Yes, sir.
22 COMMISSIONER ZECH: thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But we are still working on USI 24 A-45. Does that mean that this is a possible solution to USI 25 A-457 i
'13 a ,
.1 MR. MIRAGLIA: No , sir. What it means is that this 2 plant is sufficient to meet the current rules and 3 regulations. Pending a resolution of A-45, that may require 4 some additional upgrades. We would have to re-examine that at 5 the point in time of resolution of A-45.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Might this also be a possible t
.7 solution or don't you think so or you are not ready to say?
8- MR. MIRAGLIA: I think the issue of A-45 is broader 9 than just the depressr*' ation issue.
10 MR. MARSH: One of the reasons why we recommended
- 11. .that A-45 consider PORVs as --
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What?
. 13 MR. MARSH: One of-the reasons why we recommended 14 waiting until the A-45 resolution is that A-45 has many issues 15 in it not just the considerations that we had at the time of 16 the PORV by itself. It may have in it offsite accident 17 scenarios that aren't normally a part of the accident design 18 . basis for the plant.
.19 It may have in it security issues, other issues that 20 were broader and therefore the PORV, i.e., a feed and bleed 21 system, may provide the best means.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Thank you.
23 MR. MIRAGLIA: May I have slide seven, please?
24 (SLIDE.)
25 MR. MIRAGLIA: As Darrell mentioned in the opening
- - _.= _ _ .- -
, 14 1 remarks one concern.we had relative to Arizona Public Service 2 was the experience within the corporate atmosphere of actual 3 commercial-operating experience.
4 Since the licensing of unit 1, the vice president of 5 nuclear production has been added. This individual has almost 6- 17 years of experience in nuclear power plant operations. He 7 participated in the start-up and the operation of both San 8 onofre 2 and 3 which were similar CE units and has been with 9 Arizona Power since about June of last year.
10 So that is a recent addition to the corporate 11 staff. In addition, the executive vice president, 12' Mr. VanBrunt, has had extensive nuclear experience in the 13 design and construction of facilities, almost 30 years.
14 Site management has also been increased in terms of 15 adding operating experience. Right now the utility is looking 16 for an individual,to fill an assistant vice-president of 17 nuclear production who would be located on site and their goal 18 and objective is that this individual would have commercial 19 operating experience to fill this and they are actively 20 seeking an individual to fill that position.
21 In addition, the plant manager for the facilities 22 has several years of start-up and operating, experience at 23 nuclear power plants. He has had four years at Palo Verde and 24 I believe he has had approximately eight additional years at 25 other nuclear operating units.
9 15 1 There have also been additions of other managers, 2 . within the facility with operating experience. They have 3' added their technical support manager to the facility who has 4 also had a considerable number of years of operating 5 experience at commercial nuclear power plant facilities.
6 In addition, shift staffing, the utility is, 1
7 currently on a six-shift rotation. Each shift meets the 8 experience requirements of the NRC without the use of shift 9 advisors. That was not the case at the time of the licensing 10 of unit 1 but with unit 1, they have gained that experience ;
11 .and they have sufficient shift experience to meet our needs 12 without the use of advisors.
13 The minimum shift complement is two SRO's, two RO's, 14 a minimum of two-auxiliary operators. Each unit has a 15 dedicated shift technical advisor.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: By dedicated, what do you mean?
17 MR. MIRAGLIA: For unit 1, there is a shift 18 technical advisor for unit 1. There is a shift technical 19 advisor for unit 2. They are not shared between the units.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is he right in the control room 21 area?
22 MR. MIRAGLIA: 'He is within ten minutes of'the 23 control room, sir.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What does that mean? He is off 25 outside the plant?
, -n - , - n , , , - , - - , . - - - - , . - - , . - . . . - - . . , - - - , r - - ~ , - -, - - , - , , , - , -
16 1 MR. MIRAGLIA: He may be doing rounds in the 2 facility. He pulls a 24-hour shift and they do have a place 3: for him to lie down and rest..
4 MR. EISENHUT: Mr. Chairman, I think he physically 5 stays at the station.
f-6 '20R. MIRAGLIA: He is at the station, yes.
7- CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That is what I was getting at.
8 All~ right.
9 MR. MIRAGLIA: They have more than the number of 10 operators, six shift rotating shifts, with two SRO's and would 11 require 12 senior reactor operators licensed. They actually 12 have 16 available.
- Instead of having 12 RO's, there are 15 13 'available and those are dedicated to unit 2. In addition, 14 there are a number of individuals both on shift and staff and 15 within management who have been dual-licensed in both units so 16 they have a large number of qualified operators at both units.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you think their management 18 is strong enough, has enough depth and has thought through its 19 ~ problems so that it can operate unit 1, go through a power 20 ascension on unit 2 and keep construction on unit 3 adequately 21 covered?
22 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think, sir, if one looks back at 23 the unit 1 start-up, it was a very slow and deliberative 24 process. The utility planned lots of time for that start-up 25 process since it was a first-of-a-kind nuclear station.
}
3 i '
17-i b, I think they have been very careful in their 2 planning of the units recognizing the spacing of the units to
- 3
- assure themselves that they had the first unit up and declared 4' commercial.
5~ In fact,-in our conversations with them when we were 6 getting ready to license unit 2 and issue the low power 7 license on unit 2, we conditioned that license that we would 8 not entertain issuance of a full power license until the power 9- ascension test on unit 1 were completed satisfactorily.
10 They have done that. The unit has been declared 11 commercial and so there is a spacing of the operations of the 12 unit. With respect to the third unit, it is approximately une 13 year away. They. estimate fuel load for that unit to occur in 14 the first quarter.of 1987. They have a sufficient number of 15 operators in the pipeline to assure that they have qualified 16 operating staff and as I indicated they are in an active 17 recruiting mode to bring more qualified managers with 18 commercial operating nuclear experience into the corporation.
19 So I think that they are sensitive to the issue and 20 they have made strides since last June in the issuance of the 21 full power license on unit 1.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What sort of record have they l 23 had with regard to operators and senior reactor operators 24 passing exams? Has it been good?
25 (Commissioner Roberts exits the meeting.)
, 18 1 MR. CREWS: Generally, it has been gone. We had one 2 results of examinations here about a year ago, I think, where 3 there were a number of failures of examinations. That 4 involved one section of the examination and it involved both 5 senior licensed operators and licensed operators and their 6 weakness seemed to be clearly in the area of instrumentation 7 and control.
8 Those individuals re-took the examination and passed 9 with a quite high percentage.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Did they have training in 11 between the two exams?
12 MR. CREWS: Yes, they did.
13 MR. EISENHUT: I think, Mr. Chairman, if you look at 14 the staffing today to run a six shift operation, that is, so 15 you would have one shift in training also, I think they need 16 two SRO's and two RO's, so it would be a total of about 24 17 people.
18 As I recall, they have presently over 30 licensed to 19 fill those positions. They are working actively to keep a 20 pipeline filled so we are pretty upbeat about it that they are 21 fixing the problems they have had in the past and coming 22 along.
23 Also, on management, I will make one comment. If 24 you look under the executive VP level who is Mr. VanBrunt or 25 the vice president of production level, Mr. Hayes, if you look
1 19-1 at the-five or six managers that report directly at that 2 level, a number of those people are relatively new in the 3 sense that they brought them in in the last couple of years 4 and those individuals have quite a bit of' experience.
5 Looking across the line, some of the people have up 6 to 30 years nuclear experience. They have experience starting 7 .
up large nuclear facilities in the last five years or so so 8 they do have that experience.
9 As I recall, two or three of them are ex-Navy 10 nuclear people so they have strengthened the organization at 11 that level quite a bit. I made the comment earlier, clearly 12 the. area of experience with starting up and operating 13 facilities is where they were lacking previously. They have 14 made major strides and we are going to keep encouraging them 15 to head in that direction.
16 We think it is adequate to go forth with the 17 facility as of today.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Thank you.
19 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I have been impressed with what 20 certainly appears to me to be a rather cautious and methodical manner in which they have conducted their program.
21 Bearing in 22 mind the status of unit 1 and moving into the unit 2 now and 23 still constructing unit 3, it seems to me that they are aware 24 of their lack of experience in multi-unit operations. Not 25 many people do have that but that is something that they don't 4
m , .-, ,,,,-m-r--r ------n---e ~p ---,,,--nu-,- e ,,n,.--e,~+,.-,-y
- 20 1 have.
2 (Commissioner Roberts re-enters the meeting.)
3- COMMISSIONER ZECH: But it does seem to me that at 4 least my impression has been that they have taken a very 5 cautious and careful procedure in moving ahead and I think.
6 that the region would, it is my underntanding that the region 7 has been involved in that very much and would support the fact 8 that that has been a rather conservative approach. Is that 9 correct?
10 MR. CREWS: That is true, Commissioner. I might add 11 that we have had discussions with them on the operation of
. 12 both units and one of the agreements we have reached is that 13 they will not change modes in both units at the same time.
14 So they will assure the stable operation of one-15 unit before undertaking evolutions on the other. This is a 16 commitment we have from the vice president of nuclear 17 operations.
18 COMMISSIONER ZECH: All right. Thank you.
19 MR. MIRAGLIA: At this point I would like to turn 20 the presentation now over to Jess Crews from Region V to talk 21 about the operational and inspection experience we have had on 22 the Palo Verde Unit.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let's see. If I can 24 interrupt, I came in a bit late here. Has the question of the 25 ACRS concern about decay heat removal been discussed and
21
. 1 resolved here and in particular, has it been resolved to the 2 satisfaction of the ACRS? Is there anyone here or can you 3 report on what their views at this point are?
4 MR. MIRAGLIA: Subsequent to the event of last fall, 5 there was a briefing of the ACRS subcommittee. Since they had 6 expressed an interest in the depressurization capability for
~7 the units, before the staff did brief the ACRS and the ACRS 8 was asked whether anything they heard would change their view 9 as to leaving the matter of depressurization capability to the 10 resolution of A-45.
11 As a result of that subcommittee meeting, the 12 majority of the committee indicated that they did not see 13 anything that would change their view and they sort of
- 14. ratified their previous view that the issue could wait until 15 the resolution of A-45.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: But I take it that --
17 MR. EISENHUT: Ther'e is another step there.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: -- the minority opinion 19 still disagrees with that.
20 MR. MIRAGLIA: There was a letter to the Chairman, I 21 believe, from two members of the committee --
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's right.
23 MR. MIRAGLIA: -- and the staff has provided to the 24 Chairman a response articulating the staff's views and why the 25 staff feels the matter is resolved and the majority of the
22 1 ACRS heard those arguments and agreed with the staff.
2 MR. EISENHUT: I think there is a December 1985 3 letter where we went through, December 5 through 7, 1985,
'4 letter, were we go through a number of topics, where we had 5 asked the ACRS whether in fact they wanted to revisit the 6 issue and write a new letter hnd the majority declined at that 7- point in time and stood by their previous'overall letters of 8 1981, 1985, et cetera.
9' So we will continue to pursue that matter in 10 connection with USI A-45 with the committee.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You say a December letter. We 12 have a May 13, 1985 letter signed by the Chairman of the ACRS.
13 MR. EISENHUT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Then there was a 14 December, 1985 letter.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: December 207 16 MR. EISENHUT: I am not sure of the date. It 17 followed the December 5th through the 7th meeting, as I 18 recall.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It covers a whole host of 20 items.
- 21. MR. EISENHUT: Yes, it covers a whole host of items 22 because we had gone back to the ACRS and asked them in the 23 December meeting whether or not they wanted to revisit the 24 Palo Verda question specifically.
25 The Committee declined saying that they stood by
a 23 1 their previous letter and I believe there is a paragraph in 2 that December 1985 letter.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Of course, the point is that 4 Mr. Ebersole and Mr. Reed don't agree with that decision.
5 MR. EISENHUT: That is certainly correct, 6 Commissioner. We went back though because of that reason --
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Are we sort of at the point 8 where --
9 MR. EISENHUT: I think we may agree to disagree.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: You agree to disagree and 11 they have not budged from their position I take it.
12 MR. EISENHUT: To the best of my knowledge and we 13 are going to continue to pur' sue it with them in connection 14 with A-45, 15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I guess I don't know how to 16 ask a question like this because it really gets to the heart 17 of the ACRS and how it works and I don't think any of us 18 understand that but where is the principal expertise in your 19 judgment on an issue of that kind? It is a tough question and 20 I don't know how to ask it any differently.
21 I am trying to get some sense of even though this is 22 a minority opinion, whether the Commission should pay special 23 attention to that opinion in your judgment.
24 MR. EISENEUT: I think that is a hard question. I 25 think any time you get people's different opinions, you want
i 24 1 to'take a hard look'at them. We, in fact, in this case felt 2 that we wanted to take a hard'look at them and, in fact, we 3 have gone back and we have had numerous meetings with them.
4 We and our consultants have come:together though 5 with the detailed analysis that were provided by in this case 6 APS and their consultants. We felt that we could show that in 7 this case it was an adequate consideration.
8 We went back and tried. In order to help answer 9 that question, we didn't quite know how to approach it either 10 with two ACRS members taking differing views. That is why, in 11 fact, we made the effort to go back to them in December.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: After this January 13, 1986 13 letter?
14 MR. EISENHUT: I think that was just a reiteration 15 of where we were in 1985 as I recall.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Did you back after the issuance 17 of this?
18 MR. EISENHUT: Not again, but we will continue to, 19 as I said, continue to keep the dialogue open in connection 20 with the generic resolution. At some point the best 21 technology and the best knowledge we have, the majority 22 consensus opinion is and the staff is unanimous on it, we felt 23 the position we were in on Palo Verde was adequate for 24 licensing the plant.
25 It is on the other hand two respected individuals of l
i
r-r t . -
4- 25
,1 ~ 'the ACRS. They could not -- certainly could not away the rest 2 o'f the ACRS'and the majority opinion there which stood by its-3 previous position.
4 The best I think we can do is to continue to have 5 't2un dialogue generically and hopefully resolve it. I think we 6 'ar,e probably to the point on this issue where there will be 7 differing opinions and I would let them speak for themselves 8 certainly, but I think we are to the point where there may 9 well end up ultimately being different opinions on how best to 10~ resolve this issue.
I 11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: To what extent has the ,
12 minimum requirement expressed by Mr. Ebersole and Mr. Reed. ,
,13- been carried out? ;They had a January 13th letter here where 14 they say and I am quoting now, "As a minimum the new APSS and 15 alternate pressurizer vent should be carefully tested to 16 determine their capabilities and should be subjected to a 17 mini-PRA to assess their overall reliability."
- 18. Would you care to comment on the extent to which 19 that minimal threshold has been achieved here?
20 MR. MIRAGLIA: Tad.
21 MR. MARSH: Yes. Tad Marsh from the staff, 22 Commissioner. The RCS vent system depressurization capability 23 was tested to some extent during some recent tests. We went 24 through a detailed evaluation to determine whether this system '
25 should be completely tested to confirm its ability to perform
mu - -. - .
~
s t
~
{.-, j A '
a
. _ n,, ; L; 26 r
s"x., 1E
- s y :
as the analysis said it was going to be;able to p.erform.
One of the concerns that Arizona,had in arguing
"(h2
~; +
.:3 against the detailed test that the two ACRS gentlemen believed s
[4 should be done was the analys5.s that was performed with.the 5; - vent system had in it break flow out of the broken steam -
6 generator tube, flow out of the RCS vent system and safety 7 injection flow into the system combined with steam generator '
'8 cooling. .
9 They questioned whether a test could be constructed s 10 that would demonstrate the viability of a system with.all 11; those three parameters going on at the same time and 'wo agreed 12 with them. -
13 We did not think that you could construct a 14 reasonable test that would have small errors so that you could 15 -verify the accuracy of the system flow that way. They did
~16 other things, too, though.
- 17. Arizona did an analysis assuming a reduction in vent 18 systemJflow to confirm the analysis that they had done 19 earlier, that there were margins available. '
A 3. '
?- 2 0 They also did a test of the vent system during the 21 natural circulation cooldown test. They didn't test-the flow 22 out of the pressurizer but they tested flow out of the reactor 23 , vessel upper head, another vent system, and it demonstrated 24 that it was#able to perform depressurizat3.on capability.
'25 So we concluded that a test as the two gentlemen ia
1 27 1 from ACRS recommended was not.necessary based on these 2 arguments and others that are in our safety evaluation report.
3- CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You mean a complete test? You 4' said you did test it.
5- MR. MARSH: Yes, sir. A complete test that would 6' duplicate the analysis itself. As to the mini-PRA, a mini-PRA 7- was not done on this' system. During the conduct of the PORV 8 study, there was some consideration given to the capability of 9 the RCS vent system although it was not a detailed PRA.
10 Again, a mini-PRA was not done. It was not felt to 11 be necessary in this use.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You did the test using the 13 reactor vessel head vent. Was that a situation you analyzed 14 to see if what you got was what you expected?
15 MR. MARSH: Yes, sir. That was a very detailed, 16 very thought-out and planned test. Palo Verde like the other 17 system 80 plants has a very large reactor vessel upper head 18 and during the course of a cool down, a natural circulation 19 cool down, a void could form in the reactor vessel upper head e 20 and they need that flow path to remove the void.
21 They analyzed it before hand. They conducted the 22 test and it went according to plan.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Thank you.
R2-4 MR. EISENHUT: Mr. Chairman, one other piece of 25 information. I think it is probably not in your briefing
28
- 1. package because of'the time'we sent it down, but we did send 2 adown a March 11, 1986 analysis to the Commission of the 3 January letter of Mr. Ebersole and Mr. Reed. We sent that to 4- each of the Commissioners and we did put it in the PDR.
5 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: .You specifically addressed 6 each one of the concerns in their. letter.
7 MR.:EISENHUT: Exactly. I was going to say that-8 write-up, in fact, goes through and addresses each of these 9 specific concerns and, in fact, on page three I think'the 10 essence is really summed up when the staff states that we 11 agree with Mr. Ebersole and Reed that the rapid 12 depressurization capability has substantial merit.
13 However, the question really is can you justify on a 14 backfit grounds even for operating reactors or plants.that are 15 essentially complete and we feel that you just can't get there 16 from here but that you should consider it if in fact.you are 17 looking at a new designed plant.
- 18 So if you started from scratch today to put it in a 19 framework we are all familiar with, with a Palo Verde 4 and 5, 20 a new application would walk in the door tomorrow, there would 21 be this kind of issue that would have to be addressed. That 22 is, it is a brand new plant. Those kinds of issues, should 23 they be evaluated and included in such a new plant?
24 Basically, that is where we came down. We~just 25' don't think you can justify it on a backfit grounds.
-29 1 COMMISSIONER ZECH: But you are saying also then 2 that you don't think it is such a significant safety _ issue
'3 that it needs'to-be done.
4 MR. EISENHUT: That is correct, sir.
5~ COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: All right. . Fair enough.
[ 6 What does seem to be a worthwhile objective here and concern
~7 that is also pointed out and contained in the Ebersole/ Reed 1
8 -letter and it should be a concern at any operating plant, we 9 have had some unhappy experiences lately with poor 10 maintenance, and it.should go without saying that maintenance
-11 should be above reproach so-to-speak.
12 One of the things that seem clear at least in the 13 Ebersole/ Reed letter is that they are pointing out the 14 importance that these systems be very, very carefully ;
15 maintained. I am not a nuclear engineer but I am reading 16 things that talk about mini-valves having to function, a ,
17 rather complex system being required to function properly.
18 That means good maintenance, it seems to me.
19 It seems like unless you can convince me otherwise, 20 that there should be special attention paid to that by the 21 utility. I would hope that they would pay special attention 22 to good maintenance in any case. Do you have some comment on 23 that? Has there been a heads-up on maintaining that system?
24 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think they understand the staff's 25 concerns relative to that issue and with respect to overall
7g V '
gf ; .. .. .
, 30 1- maintenance which.is_ looked at in.the context of the SALP 2 - process --
f 3' COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Right.
4 'MR. MIRAGLIA: - -- - it was rated a "two" in the 1
5 -previous period with an improving trend. So:I think-the
~6. function of mair.tenance has been articulated to the utility 7- and I think based upon the SALP ratings, I would say that 8 . there is an improving trend.
9' -Jess, would you want to add anything to that?
~
10 MR. CREWS: Yes. In terms of the auxiliary-
.11 - pressurizer spray system we have raised a question regarding J12- additional surveillance as interin measures on particularly c i 13 the volume control tank level indication and those were done- -
, 14 quite frequently for an extended period of time and are still i
l'5 maintained until modifications are complete.
16 I think that we have on numerous occasions raised-17 the question of the importance of the~auxiliaryfspray system-18 - and they certainly are aware of those. !
19 MR. MARSH: I just want to add a small piece to 20 that. Our staff has discussed with Arizona the additional -
21 surveillance requirements on the charging pumps themselves and 22 on-their specific components, too. So we have discussed with-23 them surveillance requirements on this system and I believe 24- they are being responsive to those.
25- COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: All right. Maybe we can ,
w 1 +f=* r ..v- v- err-e -
m,-ws--w-,wi-e-rwe-vy<--y*vw--v v v- - v ~ ,e,vv, i*ve,- -wy*r ww we-+v vv --*y - t-ve - -vn,- y--w -v-w-+-,g,--'+-ww-- e tv v r er + 2
--9= * --* **v'w-m-*"+
3 31
~ 1- hear some comments from the utility as well on'the routine-4 2 maintenance that'they plan on that system. It seems to me to 3 be important. Thank you.
. 4 -
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Darrell, were you about to ,
5 leave personnel?
6 MR. EISENHUT: Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN PALIADINO: I had one.other question. What-8 is'the nature of the APS fitness-for-duty program? Are they 9 following-the EEI guidelines?
T .
}. 10 MR. CREWS: I think I can speak to that. We have 11 looked at'their program for fitness-for-duty on a number of 12 occasions. They now have and have developed over the past 12 13 to 18 months a system that includes all of the essential 14 elements of the EEI guidelines for fitness-for-duty and 15 particularly with regard to alcohol / drug abuse programs. '
16 They have a strong policy statement for a drug free
- J environment. They have indoctrination of all people in that f-18 program, supervisors as well as other employees. They have 19 the employee assistance programs, a spectrum of those. They 20 have body fluid sampling program.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: They have what?
22 ~ MR. CREWS: A body fluid sampling program, 23 urinalysis, on a periodic basis and we have looksd at it on 24 a number of occasions as I say and the program is fully 25 implemented and we are satisfied they meet the EEI guidelines.
a , -32
- i li ' CHAIRMAN-PALLADINO': All right. How would youfrate 2 their program among others that you know about?
3 MR. CREWS: I would rate their program equal to any 4 that we'have in region V.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: -At least equal. !
6 MR. CREWS: At least. equal, yes. '
7- CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you. I
- '8 MR. CREWS
- I think if it is still my turn --
- 9. . MR. EISENHUT: Go ahead, Jess, t
'10 MR. CREWS: We will skip slide eieht and I will only 11 mention that initial criticality was achieved on April 18th, ,
12 .last Friday. Low power physics testing has been completed as=
13 of Monday of this week. Those, tests went well. Like unit 1, 14 the results were very close to the design expectations and we l
15 i
have looked preliminarily at the results of those and we are i 16 well satisfied with those tests.
p 17 The plant. currently has completed the low power 18 physics testing program and the utility estimates and we agree 4
19 that the estimated date'of need for full power is about the '
-20 end of the month.
L 21 They are presently completing pre-operational 22 testing and training of plant operators on the post accident
, 23 sampling system and that is a critical path.
24 MR. EISENHUT: So I think the license before you is 25 written with a condition that would say that we would issue
+ - - _, .u....,e... ..~,.-....,,m,. ...y., , , . . . , , . . . , , , _ _ . - . , . . . . , . . , , , . . _ . .,.,., ,,_ _ .~.._ ...-._
3- 33 1 the full power license and in fact they can't go into mode one 2 operation until the regio 7 signs off on the post accident 3 sampling system.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: ~On the which?
5 MR. EISENHUT: On the post accident sampling system 6 which is the way w( have written a lot of them.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you have more?
8 (SLICE.)
9 MR.-CREWS: Slide nine presents some selective data 10 on the unit 1 performance. This is based upon a study by AEOD 11 wherein they compared some 13 plants that had completed 10 12 months of operation and the recently licensed plants.
13 Palo Verde as you see from the slide is average to 14 above average in the data comparisons that we present in this 15 viewgraph.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You have 15 scrams.
17 MR. CREWS: Fifteen total. Twelve were unplanned-18 scrams so three of those were planned.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So that is 12 over a ten-month 20 period.
21 MR. CREWS: That is correct. That would place them 12 2 among the 13 included in the AEOD study number four in terms 23 of performance, four of 13.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you mean from the top?
25 MR. CREWS: Correct.
i J'
Ni : - 34 r
1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It still sounds like a high 2 number of non-planned scrams.
3 MR.EEISENHUT: Right, non-planned scrams. You have
. 4 to be careful because on one hand you don't want to be 5- discouraging the utility to scram the plant and we have to be 6 careful that all of our emphasis on reducing scrams is not 7 discouraging them to scram it when they should scram it.
8 On the other hand, during start-up there are quite a 9 number of minor things which end up scramming the plant if you 10 really look at it and if you look past the first year, it 11 certainly should decline.
12 We all are trying to put emphasis on to get what I 13 would call unnecessary, unplanned scrams reduced but that 14 experience falls typically in what we have seen on new plants 15 over say the past five years.
t 16 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I would certainly agree that you 17 should never discourage the operator from scramming the plant 18 if for any reason he thinks he should. There is no question 19 about that.. How many of those 12 unplanned scrams then fit in 20 that category? How many did the operator scram?
21 MR. EISENHUT: None of them.
22 MR. CREWS: They were all automatic.
23 CHAIPMAN PALLADINO: Three of the 15 were planned 24 scrams if I understand them correctly.
25 MR. EISENHUT: I only made the point, Commissioner,
- - 35 l because we quite often put the emphasis on just the number and
-2 in this case I think most of these were equipment indication, 3 minor things where the plant actually automatically scrammed 4 itself, these 12 of the 15.
5 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Are you saying those three 6 planned scrams were ones the operator himself just decided he 7 ought to scram the plant?
8 MR. CREWS: They were part of the testing program.
9 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Yes. It is a testing program.
10 So there weren't any then that the operator thought he should 11 scram the plant.
12 MR. CREWS: None of them were manually initiated by 13 the operator.
14 COMMISSIONER ZECH: All right. Fine. I agree with 15 your point. We should never discourage the operator at any 16 time at any plant from scramming a plant if he thinks ha 17 should so the point is well taken. In fact, I think we 18 perhaps maybe ought to take a look at how we count the scrams 19 because those scrams as far as I am concerned should not 20 count at all. That is a safety feature.
21 MR. EISENHUT: In fact, Commissioner, that is in 22 fact the point I was making.
23 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Yes, I know it is.
24 MR. EISENHUT: I think we are making a mistake quite 25 often on how we present scram numbers publicly to the
4 36 Commission and wherever.
1 2 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Maybe we are and I am 3 emphasizing your point. You are right. We should never 4 discourage an operator from scramming the point for any 5~ reason. If he has any concern, he should scram it.
6 My point is then that shouldn't count necessarily as 7 a scram at all perhaps or if it is counted just because we 8 want to count exercising all the equipment that is involved, 9 why then we should asterisk it in some way so that operators 10 are never discouraged from scramming a plant if they have any 11 concerns.
12 So your point is well taken. How about looking into 13 that in the staff and see how we are counting that. Just as a 14 side issue, I think it is important that we follow through on 15 that.
16 MR. EISENHUT: We, in fact, sir are. Wa, in fact, 17 had a meeting with Vic vary recently on that issue and that is 18 why I emphasized it was because some of the data that we have 19 been publishing both in AEOD studies and in other studies, we 20 are going to go back and take a look at that data.
21 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I would like to know what your 22 plan is soon for changing the rules or whatever you think 23 should be done on counting those scrams so that we do not ever 24 discourage an operator from scramming a plant if he has any 25 concern.
n t -
37
.. 1- CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The reason I raised the 2 question and incidentally I agree with not discouraging an-3 operator from scramming when he has.to scram, however, what I 4 was talking about was the inadvertent scrans where equipment 5 -operated and-that shows that the equipment did operate but it 6 also may-raise questions about whether limits were properly 7 ~ set, whether the system was unnecessarily challenged by some
~
8 of the equipment, basically saying I think these scrams tHat 9 are not called for by the operator should be examined to 10 determine what they imply about the plant.
11- Excuse me. Go ahead.
12 (SLIDE. )
13 MR. CREWS: Slide ten gives the status of our 14 inspection program-and our inspection program is complete and 1
15 current with the status of.the plant today, 16 Slide 11, please. ,
17 (SLIDE.) t 18 MR. CREWS: Slide 11 shows the SALP from our most 19 recent SALP report for the period of April 1984 through 20 September of 1985. I think the slide pretty much speaks for ,
21 itself. I would add under weaknesses so that we assure that 22 you are aware that a recent security inspection has. revealed 23 some rather serious deficiencies in the security program. ;
t 24 We had a meeting, an enforcement conference, with i
25 the utility on the 10th of this month and enforcement action
- . i.
7 f 38 1 is'pending on that inspection.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Is that going to be done before
, 3 your authorize full power?
4- MR. CREWS: No, we don't~ anticipate that we will i_
O 5 .have_ completed that enforcement.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You don't think this is a 7 problem?
8 MR. CREWS: We think that the violations identified 9 during the inspection, corrective action has been taken, 10 compensatory measures, and we do not see that being an issue 11 for .8ssuance of a full power license.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right.
13 MR. CREWS: Slide 12, please.
14 (SLIDE.)
15 MR. CREWS: We have presently allegations that are 16 still open for which Rggion V is responsible for eight. We 17 have' looked at each of those sufficiently to assure ourselves 18 there are not technical or safety issues that would preclude 19 our_ recommendation on full power issuance.
20 We have completed the field work essentially on all 21 of those except for a couple of very recent ones.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So you are saying that they all 23 are being pursued?
24 MR. CREWS: Yes, they are.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And they don't affect the
7
- 39 1 safety of the plant in your mind? ,
2 MR. CREWS: We are satisfied that that is the case.
3 Yes, sir.
'4 MR. EISENHUT: Jess, before you leave that slide 5 the subject of investigations is also on this. I think 6 previously in connection with the NTOL briefing, OI gata you a 7 status of hat. They are not here today but when we went 8 through it, we concluded that there were no issues there that 9 are open yet where the reports aren't issued there are any 10 impediment to anything we are doing here today and nothing has 11 ~ really changed since the NTOL briefing.
12 (Chairman Palladino exited the meeting.)
13 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I might add before you leave ,
14 this one, too, that I visited those plants out there now on 15 two occasions and one thing that has impressed me is the 16 excellent program that the chief executive officer, Mr. Keith 17 Turley, has initiated regarding employee concerns, allegations 18 and so forth.
19 It seems to me that that is one of the better 20 programs at least that I have seen in a number of plants that 21 I have visited throughout the country. It is an excellent 22 program which I think perhaps reflects a little bit here in 23 the excellent manner in which it appears to be handling these 24 concerns.
25 Could you comment on that?
a.-
t
.t 40 1 MR. CREWS: Yes. We would agree with that. The 2- company has a quality hot line program which anyone can 3 register concerns. They can do that anonymously if they see 4 fit. We have found that concerns received via that system 5 -have gotten a very thorough evaluation and investigation by 6 the utility, yes.
7 COMMISSIONER ZECH: And it gets the chief executive 8 officer's personal attention and is handled by the line 9 management organization which seems to me to be just exactly 10 the right way to do it.
11 So it does seem to me to be one of the better 12 programs that I have seen and I think the Palo Verde 13 organ'ization is to be commended for that effort especially the 14 chief executive officer.
15 I know it came about because they had some earlier 16 problems but I think they have addressed them aggressively and 17 candidly and openly and I think that is the important thing 18 to recognize.
19 MR. CREWS: That completes my portion, Darrell.
20 MR. MIRAGLIA: There was one other thing we wanted 21 to make sure that we brought to the Commission's attention.
l 22 There have been a number of 2.206 petitions which are 23 discussed briefly on slide 13.
24 (SLIDE.)
25 MR. MIRAGLIA: They were related to both the
! i ,
e' E ,
'4 .
4 41 1 ! : licensing of Palo Verde Unit 2 and the continued operation of 2 unit 1.
3 (Chairman Palladino re-enters the maating.)
4 MR. MIRAGLIA: We have issued an initial decision on
. 5 both petitions back in February. The final decision is in 6 preparation and the staff finds no safety concerns in those 7 petitions that would be a bar to either the continued 8 operation of Palo Verde 1 nor to the licensing of Unit 2. -
9 That brings us to the next slide which is 10 conclusions of staff. Darrell. ,
11 (SLIDE.)
12 MR. EISENHUT: Yes. A couple of items to mention 13 real quick, the license that is before you, there will be some 14 minor changes that we proposed. Certain things have now been 15 completed where there were conditions in the license it is no 16 longer necessary.
17 There will be one almost somewhat of a standard 18 license condition added about masonry walls to document a 19 utility commitment to follow up on the program.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: On which?
21 MR. EISENKUT: On masonry walls. These are concrete 22 block walls. In the event of an earthquake, he would shut the 23 plant down and go in and look at the status of the masonry 24 walls. It affects a handft:1 of walls in the plant.
25 But those are some minor changes. So we believe
. 3-42 1 that the licensee has met all the requirements to go into full 2 power operatio.1 subject to the one condition on the post 3 accident sampling system which is put in the license as a 4 condition.
5 We feel that they are qualified and ready to go with 6 .the full power license. They have had an adequate low power 7 testing program and we recommend that the Commission go forth 8 with a full power authorization.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Thank you. Does 10 that conclude your presentation?
I 11 MR. EISENHUT: That concludes our presentation.
12 Yes, sir.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I have been asking my 14 questions along the way. I had one that I didn't ask. At 15 Crystal River, there was a problem with the Bryon Jackson 16 reactor coolant pumps. Who manufactured them?
17 MR. MIRAGLIA: They are not Bryon Jackson.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: They are not Bryon Jackson.
19 MR. MIRAGLIA: They are KSB which is a West German 20 concern. The design is a German design. They were 21 manufactured here in a joint agreement between CE and KSB.
22 The pump design is considerably different from those in the 23 Bryon Jackson situation.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Has there been any problem with 25 any of those anywhere with regard to shaft cracking?
43 1 MR. MIRAGLIA: Not with this particular pump. There 2 were problems with the reactor coolant pumps previously and 1
3 this is the newly designed pumps. l 4 MR. EISENHUT: Not with shafts.
5 MR. MIRAGLIA: Not with shafts, no, sir.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But was it the same 7 manufacturer?
8 MR. MIRAGLIA: No.
9 MR. EISENHUT: I think we are mixing apples and 10 oranges. The Byron Jackson pump problem that you referred to 11 as a shaft cracking; the problem we are referring to here is 12 where they had an impeller problem.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I understand. But was it the 14 same manufacturer as manufactured the revised pump?
15 MR. EISENHUT: I think in fact they repaired and 16 modified the pump.
17 MR. MIRAGLIA: Modified the design.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You have experienced no pump.
19 problems, at least the reactor coolant pumps, no problems.
20 MR. MIRAGLIA: Not since they have been replaced and 21 tested and functioning.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Was enough testin3 done to know 23 whether or not you might have a shaft cracking problem?
r 24 MR. MIRAGLIA: There was testing done of the pumps 25 even prior to -- there was prototype testing of the pump I
F t C. 44-l' design-done even before they were installed in the units.-
2 MR. EISENHUT: Yes. I think there was extensive'
'3 . testing. You may want to pursue that with the utility but 4 there was extensive testing on the pumps done.
'5 MR. CREWS: Testing, as I recall, disassembly and 6 inspection. Now whether that focussed specifically on the 7 shaft, I think we are not prepared to say.
. 8- CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: ~I was going to propose after l 9 the Commission has raised questions with the staff that we ask 10 the applicant to come to the table and maybe can respond to 11 some of the questions that we had and perhaps make a 12, statement, any statement they would like to make.
L 13 But first let's complete the questioning by the
!^ 14 Commission of the staff. Tom, do you have any questions?
f.
I 15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I have no questions. Thank l
16 you.
- 17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Fred.
l 18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I guess I would like to have
! 19 your comments at this point in evolutionary history of plant 20 designs on Palo Verde design of the plant in a general sense.
21 We focused here on one or two things that involve 22 rather c stalled nuclear engineer type design considerations 23 and capability of depressurization which I am sure doesn't 24- mean much to most people.
25 Perhaps in so doing can lose sight of the forest for
~
y 14 45-1 Linspecting some of the trees here because it is my 2 understanding that this plant is a plant that is very close 3 now with some changes'that might be required already as we
'4 point out to a standardized plant design that combustion
~
5 Engineering were it to decide to do so might come in'and 6 present for approval by this Agency.
7 So it does represent a fairly near state-of-the-art 8 plant design for this generation of reactors and power 9- plants. Could you make some general comments on that to put 10 that in perspgetive? We have talked about one or two things 11 -here that might get a look if you actually were to approve a 12- standardized plant design along the lines of this plant.
13 I would like to get your estimate of how close this 14 plant would be to that highly desirable standardized 15 criterion. I don't expect you to do an entire design 16 certification and review here in three minutes at the table.
17 I think this is an issue that maybe the public 18 deserves to know about, too. The long and short of it is that 19 this is a modern generation plant that at least I am inclined 20 to think rather highly of and I would like your opinion 21 basically.
22 MR. EISENHUT: I think if you look at it, we 23 certainly think pretty highly of it in the sense that we 24 reviewed it also as the CESSAR 80 standard plant.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Right.
74 46 1 LKR. EISENHUT: This is a standard plant. It is the-
- 2. relatively latest vintage of certainly the CE line and it is a
-3' quite recent design.
4 lie reviewed it' a little heavier I think than we 5 normally would because it being a standard plant and 6 conceivably it could be referenced around the country in a 7 number of different locations.
8 It met our tests. We did issue a safety evaluation 9 on the standard plant per se. We took it through the ACRS on
. 10 the standard plant per se and got a separate write-off for the
. 11 CESSAR 80 plant.
12 co it could be used as a reference plant coming 13~ down the line. I think the issue that the staff and the 14 Commission would have to focus on is it certainly was as good 15 of a plant as we envisioned that we needed some years ago.
16 Since Three Mile Island occurred, the commission has 17 promulgated several rules and requirements and the question we 18 really have to focus on is and I look at it in the most
- 19. . limiting case is suppose today we got an application, today, 20- for a new Palo Verde facility, a new construction permit to 21 use the other two spots on the site so-to-speak for unit 4 and 22 unit 5 and suppose the application was limited to an. exact 23 duplicate of Palo Verde 1, 2 and 3.
24 Certainly in my mind if you look at it in the 25 broadest scheme of things, certainly we are licensing unit 3.
jt:
- 47 l We'got an~ authorization for CESSAR 80. It should be 2 acceptable.
3 The. thing I.think we would have to focus on though- ..
- 4. . is that there is ' a . Commission rule that ' for CP/ML's, we called-5 itiat the time several years ago that the Commission issued 15 .which said that for new plants that come in, you would have to 7- do certain things.
8 You would have to perform a PRA. You would have to 9 do a-number of evaluations. You would have to look at severe 10 accidents by the Severe Accident Policy to see what' changes 11 should be made to the facility. There was a. separate rule on 12 conformance to the standard review plan to do a comparative 13 evaluation.
14 So in my mind the plant would be good enough today 15 and 2 v.hink we really need to come to grips with, if it is 16 ,od enocgh from a design standpoint ted.v., shouldr** it be 17 good enough f t:r some period of time which we.vid mean, in 18 effsat, you would have to exempt the plant from present 19 regulations that have been issued in the last few years 20 because even up through the Severe Accident Policy, certain 21 additional items would be required today for a Palo Verde 4 at 22 the same site even though the plant is virtually identical.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Why would that be?
24 MR. EISENHUT: Because the Commission's rules and 25 regulations have items in them either by rule or by policy
,j
,C_.
+
.1
- t 48 1 statement which would say that for plants licensed after or 2 applications after some date, additional features have to be 3 considered.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: If this plant though were given 5 generic approval through rulemaking, that could change.
6 MR. EISENHUT: Oh, certainly you could do that and, 7 in fact, that-is why I said if the application came in 8 tomorrow, these are the issues you would have to face.
9 COMMISSIONER. ROBERTS: But without getting into all 10 the specifics on new construction, would these additional 11 requirements be particularly onerous?
12 MR. EISENHUT: They may well be because one of the 13 requirements, for example, is that before you can get an 14 approval you have to perform a probabilistic risk assessment-15 to decide if any additional features should be there.
16 You would have to look at things such as the rapid 17 depressurization capability.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That issue though I think was 19 understood by CE on the CESSAR Program. As I recall, they 20 said that whatever is decided, they will fix both the CESSAR 21 and the Palo Verde plant.
22 MR. MIRAGLIA: Yes.
23 MR. EISENNUT: Oh, yes, but for every item I can 24 find a sponsor behind it that would argue that well, it was 25 always an understanding that we should fix it and in effect,
- 49 1 they'go counter to really standardization if you will and the 2 certified designs.
3 So while I say on one hand that I think that this is 4 a good designed plant, the staff's SER clearly stands behind 5 it and states that the CESS h concept is a very good approach 6 just'as the GESSAR concept and so=a etF rs.
7 These are the kinds of questions we would have to 8 address one way or another. If you decided them one way, you 9 would and up changing the plant so that literally there would r
10 be two separate -- I mean, the designs would be different at i
11 the same site.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do we have any application for 13 rulemaking on a generic basis of this plant?
l ,
l 14 MR. EISENHUT: No, sir. We do not.
l 15 MR. MIRAGLIA: No, sir.
16 MR. EISENHUT: On CESSAR, we do not. In fact, there 17 originally was an application you may recall for a Palo Verde 18 4 and 5 that was an actual application going through the 19 process in 1979 and 1980 and it got terminated at a later 20 time. That is why I think this is a very good example because
- 21 the application that was there in the past, we would have to l
22 take some really hard looks at today and make sone positive l 23 determinations about the present rules in order to allow the 1
24 plants to be the same.
25 MR. MIRAGLIA: The staff had reviewed Palo Verde 4 t
4~ ,
g ', 50-1 and 5'on a' fairly accelerated basis based upon the evaluations 2 that:we did.on 1, 2 and 3 and we had a SER that would support 3 issuances of CP's at that time.
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Isn't it true though that 5 when the Commission finished its Severe Accident Policy 6 Statement not so long ago, I recall some rustling in the weeds 7 about trying to get -- reach closure on this issue of -- was 8 it final design approval? It was at least an equivalent to 9 what we call our standard design review process or something 10 like that.
11 MR. MIRAGLIA: Yes, sir. A final design approval 12 for CESSAR, yes, sir.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I take it that that review 14 was carried out and whatever that design was, at least is now 15 viewed with favor by our staff.
16 MR. MIRAGLIA: But we did not complete a review that 17 would say that we have completed a severe accident review on 18 that facility.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I realize you haven't 20 completed a design certification.
21 MR. MIRAGLIA: Right. In order to take that FDA to 22 a design certification process that would meet all of the 23 conditions in the Severe Accident Policy, there would have to 24 be a review period; subsequent reviews and SER's, the PRA, 25- consideration of unresolved safety issues, high priority
, 51 1 generic issues.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let me see if I can simplify 3 this. What is the essential difference between that 4 standardized or FDA, final design approval review, I guess 5 that is what it was that you did, and this plant as it sits?
6 What are the essential differences?
? MR. MIRAGLIA: This plant, Palo Verde, the FDA for 8 CESSAR was essentially the NSSS system. Palo Verde took that 9 FDA, that NSSS design --
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Right.
11 MR. MIRAGLIA: -- married it to the balance of plant-
- 12. which was done. .
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Sure.
14 MR. EISENHUT: But for the portions that are here, 15 I think they are virtually identical.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That is what I thought.
17 MR. EISENHUT: I think CE is committed that if they 18 change CESSAR, they change Palo Verdo and vice-versa. That is 19 the commitment and understanding that we have had for the 20 portion of the plant that it addresses.
21 Now I will only make one other comment on it to move 22 on but I think in fact the other issue one has to think about 23 is while the staff could go through and make a determination 24 on each of these different features, aspects, rules, or 25 whatever, by today's standard if the application came in
52 1 tomorrow,-of course, the process ^goes through two hearing
. 2 .processas.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes.
4 MR. EISENHUT: We go through the CP process with the 5 hearing and eventually the OL process with the hearing and it 6 would be'a long protracted process and I think that greatly 7 detracts from the predictability if you will on the result at 8 the and of that line.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: We have had a lot of talk 10 about standardization and we all agree on the joys of 11 standardization, I guess at this table and yet when it really 12 comes down to the practicality of asking how are you going to 13 get it done, we get tangled up in our own procedures here.
14 Somehow there is a safety benefit to be gained by if 15 I may say so by building units 4 and 5 should they ever be 16 built exactly the way units 1, 2 and 3 were built. Somehow we 17 . have no mechanism for folding in that safety benefit that you 18 gain from an exact replication. It is troublesome.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But if we went through the 20 rulemaking process on this plant, on a plant of this design, 21 then I think at least the design aspects would be protected.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That still doesn't solve the 23 problem of what are you going to do if units 4 and 5 come in 24 saying that thare is some merit and one can't argue with that 25 that this is a good plant and Arizona Public Service --
p -
1 53 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: If we had gone through a 2 rulemaking to approve this design, then I think it would be 3 protected against design changes under our rulemaking without 4 even having had legislation. That doesn't say that you avoid 5 the second hearing but that at least insofar as the design was 6 concerned, I think that would be protected.
7 However, your point is very well made.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: The point is that units 4 9 and 5 preferably I should think would be identical for that 10 utility to the-three units they have already built, they know 11 how to run, that are good plants, that essentially we have 12 just been told have a final design approval from our staff and 13 yet we haven't really dealt with the issue. I guess that is 14 the problem. Enough said.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Any more questions?
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No. ,
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Lando.
18 COMMISSIONER ZECH: No.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I am going to suggest we invite 20 the licensee to join us at the table. Maybe they could make 21 some comments about their capabilities for minti-plant 22 operation and any other comments they would like to make or 23 responses to questions they would like to give.
24 Good morning. We welcome you here.
i 25 MR. VANBRUNT: Thank you. I am Ed VanBrunt,
( ,~ . . .
_ 2 J, 54 1 executive vice president for the Arizona Nuclear Power r-2 -Project. Keith Turley who is our chairman and chief executive J3 , officer asked me toIExpress his regrets in that he is unable 4 to attend today. As I think he explained to some of you
'5 yesterday prior to Senator McClure's hearings on 6 standard'ization legislation which he discussed to some degree, 7 Keith had toLreturn to Phoenix to prepare for our annual 8 stockholder's meeting which will occur tomorrow.
9 'I had some remarks about the status of unit 1 and 2 10 but,I thihk I will pass those by, 11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: If you could speak into the 12 # microphone, people could hear you in the back of the room.
13 MR. VANBRUNT: ~All right. I had some remarks about 14 unit number.1 and unit number 2 status but I think I will pass 15 them by as they have been adequately covered by the staff 16 ' members.
17 One item that you raised with us last year during 18 the unit 1 license hearing that hasn't been discussed here 19 today and I thought I would bring you up to date on it had to 20 do with our ability to store low level radioactive waste and 21 what arrangements we have for that.
-22 To bring you up to date, our contract with Hanford.
23 Disposal Facility remains in effect. Last year the State of 24 Arizona adopted a compact legislation with the State of 25 California.
. 55 1 This Compact has been pending before the California 2 legislature for more than a year without any action. More 3 recently, this-month actually, the State of Arizona and the 4 State of South Dakota entered into a low level radioactive >
5 waste disposal compact which will be the compact that the t
6 state submits to Congress for approval.
7 Under that Compact, Arizona will serve as the host 8 state for the disposal facility to be developed. So I think 9 that item-is well in hand as far as we are concerned.
10 Another item you mentioned earlier on had to do with 11 our organization and strength of corporate management. I want 12 to introduce Jerry Haynes who sits next to me here who is the 13 vice-president of nuclear production.
14 You may recall that during our presentations to you 15 last year on unit 1 that Keith Turley announced that Jerry 16 ,would be coming on as the vice-president of nuclear 17 production. He did, in fact, join us on July 8, 1985 and 18 immediately assumed his responsibilities for Palo Verde lL9 operations and has done that to this day.
20 Jerry came to us from Southern California Edison 21 where he was the station manager for the San Onofre plant. He 22 will deal with some of the questions that you have raised 23 during your proceedings thus before.
24 Before I turn it over to him, let me deal with a l
25 question that I think, Mr. Chairman, you raised regarding l
k
i 56 1 the incentive program cn1 Palo Ve'rde. ,
l 2 fWe did with regard to unit number 1 have an 3 incentive program as it related to achievement of fuel load 4 for our managers. That program applied only to unit number 1 5 and did, in fact, reward our managers for exemplary 6 ' performance in reaching fuel load in January of last year 7 wherein our target was to reach it by at least March of last 8 -year. -
9 So that-program is complete and it does not have any 10 implications for unit 2 or unit 3 at this time. Beyond that, 11 I think I will turn it over to Jerry. He can deal with a 12- couple of the other questions that you raised.
13 Regarding maintenance, both Jerry and I feel that 14 the plant is ready to operate, that we have met all of the 15 requirements and have satisfied the staff's questions. I will 16 let Jerry deal with a few of the other issues.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I wonder if anybody has ever 18 thought of incentive programs to make sure that operations are 19 done safely over a prolonged period of time? Just a throw 20 away for just a moment. I think there may be merit in 21 thinking about things like that.
22 MR. VANBRUNT: We do have an objective program that 23 does have those kinds of attributes to it and that is tied 24 into some of our managerial performance reviews so in essence, i
L 25 that does exist as far as Palo Verde is concerned. Jerry.
e- %
57
'l MR. HAYNES: Just to continue on that theme for a p
2 . moment, we have an objective on scrams. One of the discussion 3 items this morning was the number of reactor scrams that we 4- had on unit 1 during its power ascension phase. We agree with 5 you,'that number is more than we would like to have and we-6' have an objective, a specific objective, written on unit 2 to 7 cut that approximately in half during power ascension on unit 8 2.
9 We don't feel that is enough as far as long term
- 10. operation of the plant goes and we have again written goals 11 for numbers of scrams after steady state operation of the
- 12 plant is achieved that is significantly lower than that.
. 13 So we agree with you and we are taking action. The 14 action that we are taking, we think is directed toward your 15 ~1ast comment. It is an incentive to people to do better with 16 respect to actions that affect nuclear safety.
17- You asked a question early on about the auxiliary 3
18 pressurizer spray system and how we viewed that. Let me 19 comment on that. We do view the auxiliary pressurizer spray 20 system as an important system. We have taken significant 21 action, I believe, to improve the reliability of that system
- 22 beginning with a number of design modifications starting at
- 23 volume control tank level indicator which caused the system to p
24 not operate properly at one point.
25 We put in duplicate level indication and reverse
i e'
58 1 level' indication on the volume control tank. We have changed 2 the valves at the outlet of the volume control tank such that 3 they receive an automatic signal on volume control tank low 4 level and cause the suction to the charging pumps to transfer 5 to another source.
6 We have added some valves to the system as was 7 mentioned by Mr. Marsh of the staff.
8 In addition to that, looking toward the future we 9 have other studies underway which are also intended to improve 10 the reliability of the system and we have made a commitment to 11 the staff to have those studies complete and submitted to them 12 by June of this year. We are on schedule for that and we 13 expect to achieve that.
14 We have also added to the tech specs a requirement 15 to maintain valves in the auxiliary pressurizer spray system
, 16 in a certain position ar.d to surveil the position of those 17 valves.
18 So we think that we have done a number of things to 19 improve the reliability of the auxiliary spray systaa. Those 20 were done by the way as a result of a PRA type evaluation and
- 21. the results of that evaluation also show that all of what we 22 have done has had a significant effect on the reliability of 23 the system.
24 The last question that you asked was directed toward 25 our capability to operate three units from a staffing
i .
- 59 1 standpoint.
2 The way we are organized we have a separate 3 dedicated staff up to and including the superintendent level 4 on each unit so the operations department has the overall 5 responsibility for operation and maintenance of the plant and 6 keeping the plant in a condition so that it will perform 7 properly.
- 8. There is a superintendent of operations and an 9 operating staff and each of those are separate and totally 10 dedicated to the unit in question. There is one fully staffed
. 11 on unit 1 and one fully staffed on unit 2 and well toward full 12 staffing on unit 3.
13 We have carried that same organizational structure 14 through to all of the other groups within the station that 15 support the units. For example, maintenance has a separate 4
16 staff totally dedicated to unit 1. Health Physics has a staff 17 totally dedicated to unit 1 and unit 2. Chemistry, Rad Waste, 18 essentially every aspect of an organization that is needed to 19 operate the unit is dedicated to each unit.
20 Above that level, there is a common management 21 structure that applies to all three units so that the 22 superintendent on unit 1 and the superintendent on unit 2 in 23 operations, for example, report to a manager who has 24 responsibility for all three units.
25 We have done that deliberately so that the
i
'c ?~
60
. l' experience -- well, number one, for consistency along the 2' standardization line approach so that the procedures for unit 3 1 are the same as the procedures for unit 3.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Who is that person to whom they 5 report, the station managers?
6' MR. HAYNES: The superintendents report to a manager 7 within the station who' reports to the plant manager.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: To whom?
9 MR. HAYNES: To the plant manager. The 10 superintendents of operation on unit 1 reports to what we call 11 the manager of operations and he has the responsibility for 12 all three units and he reports to the plant manager and the 13 _ plant manager reports to me.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADIFO: I was asking who that 11 5 individual was that the three operation managers report to.
16 MR. HAYNES: Oh, his name is John M. Allen.
17' CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What?
18 MR. HAYNES: John M. Allen.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Allen.
20 MR. HAYNES: He has a number of years'of experience 21 An nuclear power going back to -- an operating license,1I 22 believe, he had at SMUD years ago. He has been with the !
~ 23- project here for --
. 24 MR. VANBRUNT: He has been with the project since 25 .1973. He has been in a number of positions including manager
--y- m my-,g-w, wc,we,- y--=-r.s.*e =-eg,we w w- e -w or - g+--+--- t-y-w --t,'-- + - --
F- g -g +m y y- ee----r-- + y e---, e e-,e g e- ye-+-eye r , w w w y w- + -y- gw e p i- asy-r949ww r
. . . . .__ . - .~ .
.~
61
~
-1 of engineering position.
, 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: He has operational experience?
~3 MR.-VANBRUNT: Yes.
4 MR. HAYNES: Yes, he does, commercial operating 5 experience..
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Excuse me.
7 MR. HAYNES: So that position is intended to provide ,
8 consistency across all three units and to be sure that 9 experience on one unit is transferred to the other units so 10 that we gain experience in kind of a three-fold way.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Where do you maintain your -
12 office, at the plant?
- 13 MR. HAYNES
- No. My office is about 70 miles away.
14 from the plant. I spend at least two days a week at the plant i
15 and frequently more often than that.
16 MR. VANBRUNT: As I think was indicated in the 17 staff's presentation, we are actively pursuing what we term 18 assistant vice-president of nuclear production who would 19 report to Jerry and we plan to physically locate that 20 individual at the plant full time.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you.
22 MR. HAYNES: As I said, we have the unit, unit 1 of 23 course is-fully staffed. Unit 2 is fully staffed. Unit 3 is
- 24. well along toward being fully staffed.
25 Just in summary, we are in very good shape I believe
- 62 1 .from a staffing standpoint and'an experience standpoint to 2 handle all three of the units.
3 .MR. VANBRUNT:- I think that answers the questions 4- that at least we jotted down during the. presentation.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think there was one 6, ' Commissioner Bernth'al asked about. maintenance. Do you want to 7 address that?
-8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, I think you have 9 addressed it in part. You can speak further if you like. I
- 10. am just struck by the fact that these two individuals on the 11 ACRS point cut-the necessity for-high reliability on those 12 systems that relate to depressurization capability and I am-
- 13 sure you are sensitive to that.-
14 There is always a necessity for high reliability and 15 good maintenance and according to our staff, your maintenance 16 record is very good. It is,not a "one" yet, but apparently it 37 is moving'toward that point.
18 I think my comment / question was simply that of 19 paying careful attention to maintenance of those systems. Do
- 20. you have any further comment on that point?
21 MR. HAYNES: I will make one additional comment.
22 The maintenance manager who the maintenance superintendents on 23 each unit report to is an experienced operating individual in 24 addition to having expertise in maintenance, he had an SRO as 25 an operator at one of the eastern utilities. I forget which
. 63 1- one now and, in fact, he also worked at San Onofre for some -
2 time during their start-up program in the operations 3 organization as a contractor at that location.
4 So he is experienced in the operating phase of the 5' plant and in operation of the plant and we think that adds to
'6 his capabilities as a maintenance manager. He better.
7 understands how important it is to keep the equipment in good 8 shape. .
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Thank you. ,
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Any more?
'll COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That was the only specific 12 question I had.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Any other ,
14 questions?
15 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Just a quick question. What l<6 is the population of EPZ?
17 MR. VANBRUNT: Less than 3,000 people.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Very low.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let me just make a brief 20 comment if I can. I hope it is evident from the earlier 21 discussion we had on the CESSAR versus Palo Verde plants that 12 2 .this is a very good plant design.
23 You are building three of them in a row. This is 24 probably, I think, by any measure the largest civilian 25 construction project in the country. I suspect that most
~.
64 1 people don't know that but it is the only site in this country 2 that comes.close to rivaling some of what the French 3- . achievement has been at a few of their pites and as you know 4 when I was out there recently I urged that you should make 5 this place a showcase. It ought'to be a showcase.
6L It is a very well sited plant. It is a good 7 designed plant. It has everything going for it. I would hope 8 that that is a point of pride that Arizona Public Service 9 takes and I trust and hope you do.
10 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: And the other owners.
i 11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's right. ~The other 12 owners, we don't want to forget them.
13 It really is quite an achievement I think 14 representing something that is pretty much at the forefront of 15 nuclear power plant technology. I think that needs to be said 16 because it is in a place that most people don't see which in 17 itself is good, I think. It is a remotely sited plant.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It is a very impressive plant.
19 I was impressed when I visited it ar.d I found the design very 20 sound, subject to clarification of soas of these 21 depressurization issues..
22 Any other questions?
23 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Just a quick comment. I would 24 commend you for your slow and cautious approach that you have i
25 taken as you bring on the second unit. As you look towards
- _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ , ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ _ - . .
! s 1- * .
65 l_ the third unit next year, it is important that you. continue
- 2: that attitude, that conservative approach in my view.
3 'I know it~has cost you a little bit in time perhaps 4 and.I know that Region;V and NRR have encouraged you to do
~
5 this and you have done it but I think that is the right 6 approach to take.
, 7 You are involved in a very challenging undertaking 8_ with bringing.on the.three units and I would just caution you -
~
9 to continue that approach and also I think it is important 10 that you continue to seek out experienced personnel, 11 management people that can be involved at your site and I 12 think that is something that is unfinished business that you
-13 should continue.
14 I think as you point out, you are doing exactly 15 that. That is also the right approach to'take, I believe. I 16 think it is important that recognizing that there is not a lot 17 of multi-unit experience anywhere that you do continue your 18 deliberate and cautious and careful approach to all the 19 start-up procedures and continuing evolutions at Palo Verde.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Thank you.
21 MR. HAYNES: May I make just one comment?
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: go ahead.
23 MR. HAYNES: I have experience at a three-unit 24 station.
25 COMMISSIONER ZECH: But who else out there does?
't p- G6 1 MR. VANBRUNT: So does Joe Bynum.
2 MR. HAYNES: Joe Bynum who is the plant manager has 3 experience at a three-unit station. So.we do have some 4 experience in'three-unit operations. We recognize you are 5 _ exactly right. It is a challenge and it is a challenge that 6 we are aware of.
7 COMMISSIONER ZECH: There are two of you. But as
. 8 you do into managing the three units, your organization is 9 going to be important to you. '
. 10' MR. HAYNES: No question.
I 11 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Your management team is very 12 important to you and my point is that it is different from 13 just managing one unit or even two.
-14 MR. HAYNES: Yes.
15 COMMISSIONER ZECH: You have a challenge when you 16 manage three units, a special challenge, and I know you 17 recognize that and you can't get too much experience as far as 18 I am concerned in your management team. It is the key to
- 19. successful and safe operations and I am sure you recognize 20 that, too.
21 MR. VANBRUNT: We certainly do, sir.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I guess the good news is 12 3 that there probably is no other three-unit site where all 24 three units are identical. Is that true? I believe it is 25 true.
i 67 1- MR. HAYNES: Yes.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me interrupt. Two minutes 3 ago, Commissioner Roberts reminded me that he is going to 4 leave in six minutes and I would like to call for a vote if 5 you are prepared to vote. So let me pose the question.
6 Does the Commission agree to authorize the staff to 7 issue a full power operating license for Palo Verde 2 subject 8 to the conditions and the completion of the tests that it may 9 prescribe, meaning it, the staff?
10 All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
11 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Aye.
12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Aye.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Aye.
~
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Aye. I guess that leaves 15 nobody to say "no." Thank you very much, gentlemen. We 16 appreciate your being here. We wish you the best of luck. I 17 want to thank the staff for a very fine presentation and we 18 look forward to going ahead with full power operation and 19 completion of construction on unit 3.
20 MR. VANBRUNT: Thank you very much.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you. We stand adjourned.
22 (Whereupon, the Commission meeting was adjourned at 23 11:40 o' clock a.m., to reconvene at the Call of the Chair.)
24 25
i 1
2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3
- 4. This is to certify that the attached events of a 5 meeting of'the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6 7 TITLE OF MEETING: Discussion /Possible Vote on Full Power Operating License for Palo Verde-2 (Public Meeting)
. 8 PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, April 23, 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 4
14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17 18 ---- AE=* %<='---- :YA 'L'Y--
19 Marilynn M. Nations 20 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23 24 25
~ -
h s k%
gI;
~ ~
{ l s
a ~{
s 1
- - - .---,,,----,-_.,.-,--,-,,-,,,_,-._,c,.---,.c.----,,--.,,.-,.,-,,,--,.,,-,,----,-----,,----,-,,----n , - , - - - - - , - . - - - - - - - - - - - -
r PALO VERDE UNIT 2 FULL P0YER LICENSE LICENSEE / PLANT BACKGROUND
- SITE CHARACTERISTICS
- SELECTED 1SSUES
- OPERATING EXPERIENCE UNITS 1 & 2
- INSPECTION PROGRAM SALP/SAIP PERSPECTIVES , .
ALLEGATIONS / INVESTIGATIONS
- 2.206 PETITIONS
- CONCLUSIONS SUDE 2
a.
LICENSEE / PLANT BACKGROUND
- LICENSEES ARIZONA PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY (OPERATOR)
SIX CO-0WNERS CP ISSUED MAY 1976
- PLANT 2ND UNIT (3RD UNIT IN PRE-OP TESTING WITH PROJECTED FUEL LOAD IN FIRST QUARTER 1987)
- REACTOR - CE SYSTEM 80, 3800 MWt,1270 MWe A/E AND CONSTRUCTOR - BECHTEL e
SUDE 3 e e m W W e e e p p e & W se W W g $ e e e W e e e e@ e e W W W e 6 6 #
=4 e e e e
3 ,
4 f i
- ~ .
t SITE CHARACTERISTICS E
- SPARSELY POPUIATED NEAREST TOWN - BUCMYE (16 MILES,POPUIATION 3000)
OffSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING IAST EMERGENCY EXERCISE - SEPTEMBER 1984 FEMA FINAL FINDINGS ON OFFSITE PIANS - SEPTEMBER 1985 NEXT EXERCISE - JUlE 1986 SUDE 4.
e
@ ** *4 er W e6M Ge SS d 99 98 ep p p ge up et em Me 6@66 - 6 6 *'# 4 ** * * *
' ' ^
- f. T -
SELECTED ISSUES DEPRESSURIZATION CAPABILITY
~
- ANPP ORGANIZATION l
r d S SUDE 5 i
I
- - wr,, e-- , _ w -m v--~ -- , , -+-.- - , , -
-.,-y y--- ,- - y --,y-- , . , , , - y .,.r -e
. DEPRESSURIZATION CAPABILITY APRIL 1984 - RESOLUTION OF PORY ISSUE DEFERRED AND INCORPOR1TED INTO TECHNICAL RESOLUTION OF USI A-45
- STAFF CONCLUDED THAT CE PIANTS WITHOUT PORVs (e.g. PALO VERDE) - MEHf REGULATORY REQUIREENTS EXCEPT FOR POSSIBLE SINGLE FAILURE AFFECTING APSS OCTOBER 1984 - ANPP COMMITTED TO EllMINATE IDENun:.9 SINGLE FAILURE SEPTEEER 1985 - EVENT AT PALO VERDE UNIT l DEMONSTRATED OTHER ~
~
VULNERABIL11TES TO APSS - SYSTEM YAS GIVEN CREDIT FOR MITIGATION OF SGTR ACCIDENT OCTOBER THRU - ANPP COMM11TED TO VARIOUS UPGRADES TO APSS AND .
DECEMBER 1985 PROVIDED A REANALYSIS OF SGTR ACCIDENT USING SAFErf GRADE PRESSURIZER GAS VENT SYSTEM FOR MITIGATION DECEMBER 1985 - IN SSER 9, STAFF FOUND REANALYSIS OF SGTR ACCIDENT ACCEPTABLE, AND THAT UPGRADES TO APSS ,
MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BTP RSB 5-1 SUDE6
-r ,- , --,--- - -- - - -
L-..-
ANPP ORGANIZATION t
- CORPORATE MANAGEMENT
~
- - SITE MANAGEMENT-
- SHIFT STAFFING e
t O
SUDE 7 9
9 9 W 9
+ -
MILESTONE DATES PALO VERDE UNIT 1
- - RECEIVED LOW POWER LICENSE - DECEMBER 31,1984
- COMPLETED FUEL LOAD .
- JANUARY 11,1985
- INITIAL CRITICAUTY - MAY 25,1985
- RECEIVED FULL P0YER LICENSE - JUNE 1,1985
- DECIARED C01BERCIAL OPERATION - FEBRUARY 13,1986 PALO VERDE UNIT 2
- RECEIVED LOW POWER LICENSE - DECEMBER 9,1985 .
- COMPLETED FUEL LOAD - DECEMBER 16,1985 .
- INITIAL CR]TICAIJTY - APRIL 18,1986 e
SUDE 8
-,-s, -,.. - , -, .,,.,..
OPERATIONAL EXPERENCE - PALO VERDE UNIT 1 O TOTAL NIBGER OF ESF ACTUATIONS 38
- 32 ESF ACTUATIONS IN FIRST 10 MONTHS
- AVERAGE AMONGST 13 PLANTS $
0 TOTAL NUMBER OF LERs SUBMITTED 101
-. 83 LERs SUBMIT?ID IN FIRST 10 MONTHS
- BETTER THAN AVERAGE AMONGST 13 PLANTS
- O TOTAL NUMBER OF UNPIld4NED TRIPS 12
- 8 REACTOR TRIPS IN THE FIRST 10 MONTHS BETTER THAN AVERAGE AMONGST 13 FLANTS*
O TOTAL NUMBER OF REACTOR TRIPS 15 .
+ 13 MOST RECENTLY UCENSED PLANTS (FROM AEOD STUDY)
SUDE 9
- PALO VERDE UNIT 2 INSPECTION PROGRAM PREOPERATIONAL TESTING INSPECTION
- COMPIRIE (EXCEPT FOR PORTIONS OF RADIATION MONITORING SYSTEM - TO BE INSPECTED AFTER LICENSEE COMPLETES SYSTEM BY JUNE 30,1988)
- COLD PLANT HYDROSTATIC TEST COMPLETED NOVEMBER 1984
- HOT FUNCTIONAL TESTING COMPIETED SEPTEMBER 1985
- INTEGRATED SAFEGUARDS TESTING COMPLETED SEPTEMBER 1985 i
- STARTUP TESTING INSPECIION
- ON SCHEDUAL
- INITIAL FUEL LOADING WITNESSED
- OPERATIONS PHASE INSPECTION ON SCHEDULE SUDE 10
r i
SALP PERSPECTIVES FROM SEPTEMBER 1985 REPORT
- MOSTLY LEYEL 2 RATINGS; REMAINDER AhE LEVEL 1 (IMPROVEMENT FROM PREVIOUS SALP)
- STRENGTHS MANAGEMENT ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN ONSITE ACTnTIlES INSTRUMENTATION FUEL LOADING FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAMS WEAKNESSES QUAlllT RELATED ACTIVITIES COMPLETENESS OF LERs ' '
DETAILED AWARENESS OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
- OVERAIi PERFORMANCE WAS SATISFACTORY SUDE 11
AILEGATIONS/ INVESTIGATIONS
\
IN GENERAL, ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED FOR PALO VERDE HAVE APPOED TO AIL THREE UNITS. .
- A NUMBER fiAVE BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS .
p
- MOST HAVE BEEN RESOLVED h
I-i: '
A FEY ARE STEL OPEN t
NONE ARE OF SUFFICIENT BIPORTANCE TO PRECLUDE FULL POWER IJCENSING O
O e
SUDE 12 ~-
o
2.206 PETITIONS
- PALO VERDE UNIT 2 JANUARY 17,1986 PETITION FROM CREE ON MANAGEMENT CAPABIllTY
- SUPPLEMENTED ON JANUARY 21,1986 ..
- PALO VERDE UNIT 1 FEBRUARY 3,1986 PETITION FROM CREE ON AUIGED INADEQUACY OF CONTAINMENT LEAK RATE TESTING PERFORMED
. IN DECEMBER 1982 DIRECTOR'S DECISION INITIAL DECISION ON BOTH PETITIONS ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 18.1986 FINAL DECISION PENDING STAE FINDS NO SAFETY CONCERNS YlTH REGARD TO PAID VERDE UNIT 2 LICENSING AND UNIT I OPERATION SUDE 13
6 q..,,
t.
i #
~
1 $oi> ..b!
- r .,, t_
l
- 1
. ./c( J o; ;
'e A
CONCLUSIONS e i 1 1-j .IJCENSE5MEETS All STAFF REQUIREENTS FOR FULL POWER AUTHORIZATION me g $
t k N e
V e
I t
- - SUDE 14 -
9
-e.~ , , a n ,- - ~ , - , --
- , - , - . , , , - - - - ,- r e-n - y - - , ,--~ -r, , r- -r w , v n - .n
m ,
hkkkkkkkk hkkkkhh -
9/35 TRANSMITTAL 'ID: Q/ Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips E
4 ADVANCED COPY 'IO: / / 'Ihe Public Document Ibcm DATE: /1612(- cc: C&R
- OM i E
papers)
Attached are copies of a Conmission meeting transcript (s) ard related necting docunent(s) . 'Ibey are being forwardcd for entry on the tuily Accession List ard placanent in the Public Document Bocm. No other distribution is requested or required. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual documents wherever hn.
~
tbeting
Title:
DSC;J 5% ho ssak Uek. m Fat 9-Otwoh 6e- b T d. UeA4-2.
\ >
Meeting Date: Llf9A 8(o Open Y Closed DCS Copies (1 of each checkcd) ]::2 Itan
Description:
(bpies Advanced Original May DuplicatepS To PDR , Docutent be Dup
- Copf* M
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1 , 1 hhen checked, DCS should send a ,
M hn
, copy of this transcript to the ,
LPDR for 15 p' u braAs
- J '
- 2. , g
- lS
- in
- 3. ,
R E
2 4.
lE
, g
- lG
- E
- E E
(PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SBCY paper.) *
h g
N W&o%3MWo%%%%%%%%%M%%Wo80MMWAMMMM%%%%%%%MMMMI@%M%%