ML20214J069
| ML20214J069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8612010139 | |
| Download: ML20214J069 (109) | |
Text
' ~
ORIQlNy~
I UNITED STATES OF RICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Discussion /Possible Vote on Davis Besse Restart (Public Meeting)
Docket No.
(
Location: Washington, D. C.
Date: Friday, November 21, 1986 Pages: 1 - 63 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES g'"
Court Reporters 1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 8612010139 AA11D1 (202) 293-3950 V0R 10GR 9T.4.7 DR. _
1 l
V i 1 D I SC LA I M ER 2
3 4
5 6 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7 United States Nuclear Regulatory Ccomission held on In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, S 11/21/86 ..
9 'N.W., Washington, D.C. The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation. This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, 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 dc not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No 18 plead.'ng or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 autnorire.
22 23 24 25
l 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ---
4 DISCUSSION /POSSIBLE VOTE ON DAVIS BESSE RESTART 5 ---
6 Public Meeting 7
8 FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1986 9 1717 H Street, N.W.
10 Washington, D.C.
11 12 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, in open e 13 session at 10:00 a.m.
14 15 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
16 LANDO W. ZECH, JR., Chairman of the Commission 17 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Commissioner 18 JAMES K. ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 19 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Commissioner 20 KENNETH M. CARR, Commissioner 21 22 23 24 25
e a 2 1 NRC STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
2 J. HOYLE W. PARLER 3 J. WILLIAMS P. SMART 4 S. SMITH J. WOOD 5 P. HILDEBRANDT B. O'CONNOR 6 S. JAIN V. STELLO 7 J. KEPPLER F. MIRAGLIA 8 A. DEAGAZIO 9
10 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
11 R. GINN 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good morning. The purpose of 3 today's meeting is to receive a briefing on the readiness of 4 the. Davis Besse plant for restart. The Commission will hear 5 from Toledo Edison and the NRC Staff.
6 At the conclusion of the presentation, I will ask 7 the Commission to vote to authorize the staff to allow Davis 8 Besse to restart after the staff makes the appropriate 9 necessary findings and determinations.
10 The Commission was previously briefed on the 24th of 11 July, 1986 on the status of Davis Besse by the Toledo Edison 12 representatives, and the staff gave an evaluation of the 13 corrective actions that had taken place and were underway.
14 The full Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards met on the 15 lith of July this year to discuss the restart of Davis Besse, 16 and the committee has written a letter supporting the restart 17 to the Commission.
18 I hope that either the Licensee or the staff will 19 address the remaining critical path items remaining prior to 20 restart, and to explain the recent problems encountered 21 concerning the main feedpump speed controllers.
22 I'd also like to point out that two 2206 petitions 23 have been received; one was filed by the Attorney General of 24 Ohio and the other by Susan Carter and the Toledo Coalition 25 for Safe Energy.
I
_ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ __ _ ._. _ _ _ . - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ . . _ - _ . _ _ . . _ . = . . . . , .
v e
4 1 Do my fellow Commissioners have any opening 2 comments?
3 [No response.]
4 If not, Mr. Williams, will you proceed, please?
5 MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like our President Smart to open 6 for Toledo Edison, Mr. Chairman, if you please.
7 MR. SMART: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, we are 8 very pleased to be able to be here today and to report to you 9 that as a result of approximately a year and a half of very e
10 hard work, we feel that we have virtually completed our course 11 of action and we're ready to suggest to you that we should 12 have our license reinstated.
13 Joe Williams and his staff will make the 14 presentation of the details of what we have done and why we 15 feel'we're ready.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right, thank you very much.
17 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we also have with us 1
18 today Mr. Bob Ginn, who is the Chairman of Toledo Edison and l 19 Centerior, and he is seated here in the first row on the aisle l 20 on your right.
l 21 We're here to give you a briefing of the status of 22 the pre-start and post-startup commitments that we made in 23 our course of action in September of 1985, which has 24 subsequently been amended periodically as the need arose. I'm 25 not going to touch on all the commitments, just the major l
l l
l_ _ __
a 5
1 ones.
2 [ Slide.]
3 The major changes you may recall. We reorganized 4 and are in the process of increasing the staffing in order to 5 provide the talent to properly operate the plant and also to 6 allow us to rely less on consultants for the operation. It is 7 increased from 690 to 1029. Originally we told you that we 8 would be 930, but since we have moved more people in from the 9 corporate structure into the nuclear mission, and our current 10 approved staffing is 1029. We have 890 onboard as of November 11 17th, 1986.
12 We can also add to that 27 offers that have been 13 made and accepted but the people have not yet started to
- (~
14 work. We have 10 offers pending and three offers being 4
15 approved.
16 [ Slide.]
17 Well, put the other one back. One of the things --
18 of course, we have increased the salaries to make them 19 competitive with industry to allow us to do the recruiting of i
20 the talent that we needed. We gave the Toledo Edison people 21 their own site at the time, sixty percent of that increase, 22 and this January we will give them an additional 40 percent, 23 provided their performance substantiates the fact that they 24 should receive that increase.
j 25 One of the stabilizing things that we've instituted l
6 1 in our personnel management has been the random drug screening 2 program. We've screened 423 Toledo Edison employees to date; 3 four have been positive and those four have been terminated.
4 We are testing all contractors on site; that's 5 Babcock & Wilcox people, Stone & Webster, any of them that are 6 out there for more than a week. We've tested 1374; 54 have 7 shown up positive and they've been denied access to the site, 8 and we've moved all nuclear personnel to the site.
9 (Slide.]
10 on the nuclear mission staffing, this is a chart 11 that reflects what I just told you. The November figures of 12 890 are not in there. The staff has not been updated.
13 (Slide.]
, (
14 We had anticipated having trouble with the nuclear 15 engineering group in getting the talent, and we really 16 concentrated our recruiting efforts in that area and it's paid 17 off. We're right on track to the approved 207 manning, as you 18 see by the graph.
19 [ Slide.]
20 Planned organizational changes. We've instal...ed a 21 new plant manager, an experienced one, Mr. Stores. He's nov 22 'with us today; somebody has to keep the store. A new 23 assistant plant manager for maintenance, Mr. Steve Smith on my 24 right; assistant plant manager for operations, Mr. Bill 25 O'Connor from whom you'll hear later, was promoted from c
e :
^
y l l
1 within; and a new general superintendent for outage and 2 program management, Mr. Eric Solowitz that came to us from 3 Electric Boat Division, General Dynamics.
4 In the engineering organization we installed a new 5 engineering general director, Mr. Phil Hildebrandt, who came 6 to us from Mandel Panoff in Rockwell, originally with Admiral 7 Rickover and then Duke Power before he came to us; a very 8 experienced, very talented engineering director.
9 A new systems engineering director, Mr. John Wood, 10 and we're very pleased with the performance of this 11 department. It's staffed with what we called our cognizant 12 engineers who are responsible for the systems and components 13 from cradle to grave, and they are working extremely well with
~
14 Mr. Smith and his maintenance people.
15 We have the new Nuclear Engineering Department under 16 Mr. Suchil Jain who reports to Phil Hildebrandt in that 17 capacity, and we instituted the Independent Safety Engineering 18 Department at the request of the ACRS and because we really I
19 needed it, and Mr. Suchil Jain also heads that up but he l
l 20 reports to me in that capacity, not to Mr. Hildebrandt.
i 21 A new quality assurance director was hired. We l
22 reorganized the department, got them more closely involved l 23 with the work that was in process at the plant and on a better 24 audit program than they were following at the time of the June .
25 9th event.
l . .
e 8
1 We have restructured the company Nuclear Review 2 Board. At the time of the June 9th event and prior to that it 3 was comprised totally of Toledo Edison personnel. We brought 4 in five external members. We have a lot of talent and it 5 gives us the broad view that we need.
6 A new Information Management Division, data 7 processing, the computer. As you know, we're computerizing (
8 the configuration management program. We've made great 9 strides in this area, in great part due to combining our 16 efforts with those of Centerior Corporation that was formed,
(
11 the holding company that was formed last year. [
12 We have a new materials manager on site and we've 13 expanded the materials management organization. We've moved l.
14 everybody now from corporate out to the site and they report 15 to me. The planned transition from Senior Vice President, me, 16 to the Vice President is proceeding as we had promised it 17 would, and Mr. Don Shelton, whom you know, will relieve me 18 when the plant is up and running and stabilized.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: When will that take place?
'20 MR. WILLIAMS: I hope in December, Mr. Chairman, 21 that I can say it is stabilized.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Will the organization remain as it 23 is now for a period of time after that? I'm thinking of 18 24 months or a couple years or something like that so that l
i 25 Mr. Shelton will have the same reporting structure as you h
W S
9 1 have?
-2 MR. WILLIAMS: That's my understanding, that that 3 will -- the organization as it exists will remain in place.
4 The commitments and the course of action, as you know, the 5 post-restart commitments, are considerable. And it needs the 6 kind of support that I've had to bring that to fruition, and 7 the intent and it's on that condition really that I'm here 8 today saying we're ready to start up because that's what needs 9 to be done to ensure that the course of action is completed as 10 planned.
11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Is that -- Mr. Smart, Mr. Ginn --
12 MR. SMART: Mr. Chairman, I believe we earlier made 13 a commitment to you that we would come in and talk with you 14 before there was any organizational change to make sure --
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes. But for now you plan to keep 16 it in place.
17 MR. SMART: Maybe Mr. Ginn could speak to that. I 18 have no knowledge of any intent to change. .
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Ginn, do you have any?
20 MR. GINN: I'm Robert Ginn, Chairman of Centerior 21 Energy and Toledo Edison. We have no plans underway to change 2& the organizational structure at Toledo Edison or any of the 23 reporting relationships. We may add some nuclear capability 24 at the holding company sometime during the next year. We 25 expect to have Mr. Edelman from Cleveland Electric who has
e 10 1- been the number one person at Perry, probably up to the 2 holding company to give us at the top staff advice. But we-3 aren't going to change any of the structure under Joe Williams 4 or Paul or change any of the access that Joe has had directly 5 to me and which we expect that Don Shelton will have.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine. That's important I think. I 7 know you've made a lot of significant management changes; they 8 seem to have strengthened your organization and your reporting 9 chain and I think it's important to the Commission and the 10 staff that we recognize that they're going to remain in place 11 for a censiderable period of time. Thank you very much.
12 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, one of the areas, or 13 the area in which we received the most criticism after the 14 June 9th event was in the area of maintenance, and I would 15 like to address what has been done in that area, and Mr. Steve 16 Smith, our Assistant Plant Manager for Maintenance will 17 briefly go through what has transpired in his department since 18 June 9th, 1985.
19 [ Slide.)
l -
20 MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, good
- 21 morning. Since our last briefing, we've continued to 22 implement the course of action that we outlined for the 23 improvement program in maintenance. The Maintenance 24 Department currently stands at 199 approved positions; all of 25 the key slots are filled with the exception of the I&C
. e.
11 1 Superintendent slot which I'm in the process of filling. We 2 had an I&C superintendent in design.
3 We have. adjusted the ratios of supervision to craft 4 to the levels that we said we would; one to ten, one to seven 5' and one to six. This allows for increased supervisory 6 participation in field work and reduces the amount of time 7 that each individual spends on administrative duties.
8 In the area of training, we have implemented the 9 training foreman's position. We adopted the traineeship 10 concept and did implement it. Those people worked together to 11 take a training program that was basically in the early stages 12 of development. They completed the development at the 13 training program and we submitted it to INPO and had our site
(-
14 visit from INPO; very well received. The training program 15 itself resulted in an INPO Good Practice at the recent INPO 16 site visit in the skilled craft area.
17 In our administrative and technical procedures we -
18 currently have approximately 59 percent of them completed. ,
19 All the procedures necessary for restart have been completed 20 and implemented.
21 [ Slide.)
22 In the area of spare parts and material control 23 there are now six full-time parts personnel on site. They 24 coordinate between the systems engineer and the Maintenance 25 Department to determine the necessary parts to be on hand, and
~*
12 1 then proceed with the ordering of the parts. The spare parts 2 program is underway and will probably be completed near the l l
3 end.of 1987.
4 We now have a staging warehouse within the protected 5 area. As you recall, the plant warehouse is about a quarter 6 of a mile away from the plant and we've implemented the 7 staging warehouse and it's added a good deal of efficiency and 8 effectiveness to our maintenance program.
'9 Engineering support interface. We have the System 10 Engineer Department now. They interface very closely with the 11 Maintenance Department and the Operations Department. We've 12 proceduralized a program for requesting engineering
, 13 assistance. It's very similar to the work order for
(
14 Engineering to do work for us, to give us technical answers.
15 Plant cleanliness and material readiness. Those of f
16 you who have visited us can see the results of our labors in 17 the area of plant cleanliness and material readiness. We're 18 very proud of our plant. We have a program of procedure and a 19 program which requires the monthly inspection of each of the i
20 management personnel inside the plant. We have formalized 21 checklists, and the results of their inspections are formally 22 reported to me and the other superintendents who are 23 responsible for taking action to. resolve any discrepancies.
24 We have a centralized planning and scheduling group 25 that coordinates all the various departments' efforts in the
13 1 plant to the schedule. We have a daily plan-a-day meeting 2 with the managers attending that meeting, and we have a 2:00 3 o' clock in the afternoon meeting for the worker level 4 supervisors to assure they understand the next 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />' work 5 requirements. .
6 [ Slide.]
, 7 Our new facilities are nearing completion. The 8 first group which will be the planning and scheduling and the 9 document control group will move into that building around the 10 15th of December. All personnel will be in the building by 11 the first of the year.
12 We've had acceptable evaluations by the NRC in the 13 area of maintenance earlier this year. We just completed our 7
\
14 INPO site visit. They were very pleased with the progress 15 that we had made. We got two Good Practices in the area of 16 maintenance an I believe two Good Practices in the area of 17 operations.
18 For future activities, we intend to continue fine 19 tuning our organization. We are going to monitor very closely
[
20 the implementation and broadening of the PM program and the l
21 daily work effort to assure that we have the correct numbers 22 of crafts and the correct discipli es to support plant I
i 23 activities. We're going to bring :he systems engineering j 24 group into our new building and we've got a place all reserved 25 for them on the fifth floor. And we will continue our spare l
l-
14 ..
1 parts and configuration management programs.
2 Any questions?
3 (Slide.] !
4 MR. WILLIAMS: Here is a thumbnail sketch of the 5 major work completed for restart. We proceduralized the 6 entire effort at Davis Besse; 667 procedures have been 7 identified as required for restart, we have one to complete 8 before we move out of Mode 5, two to complete.before we move 9 out of Mode 4 and five before we move from 2 to 1. And we'll 10 have to be in those modes before we can finalize those 11 procedures.
12 Facility change requests for modifications; 276,
- 13 some of them very major. There are two remaining ~to be
(
14 completed before we move out of Mode 5 and it's really mostly 15 a paperwork exercise. We have repaired all the Raychem 16 defects that we found in the insulation. MOVATS, 165 of those 17 little jewels have been babied to death and they're ready to 18 go.
i 19 The nonconformance reports --
! 20 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Can you please educate me and' 21 tell me what MOVATS stands for?
22 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Those are motor-operated i 23 valves, Commissioner.
24 The nonconformance reports are 276 have all been s 25 completed and we discontinued nonconformance reports and went
15 1 to the potential condition adverse to quality reports which 2 you see next. The total of those, 182. We have eight to 1
3 complete to move out of Mode 5.
1 4 License commitments for restart total 440. We have ,
5 six remaining to move out of Mode 5. And not shown on this 6 slide is the fact that we've completed about 14,000 7 maintenance work orders in all areas during this outage.
8 [ Slide.]
9 Remaining to be done in the maintenance work order 10 area. We have 107 that are actually requiring work in the 11 field to move out of Mode 5, and these others cannot be done 12 until we get into Modes 4, 3 and 2. We have paper to close 13 out on 25 additional ones, and we have 388 that we cannot sign 14 the paper off until we do the test procedures and the 15 surveillance tests that are shown on the next slide.
16 [ Slide.]
17 We have one test procedure remaining to do for Mode 18 5, and 26 surveillance tests. When we do those surveillance 19 tests and that TP, those other maintenance work orders will be 20 completed and we can send them to the vault.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Why don't you give us 22 an example or two of some of these -- of the more important of 23 the items that you feel remain to be done before you complete 24 this process, Joe, if you would.
25 MR. WILLIAMS: I have that on -- okay.
16 1 COMMISSIONER BERNTEAL: Or are we still getting 2 there?
3 MR. WILLIAMS: We're still getting there. I'll 4 touch on that.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay, fine. Good.
6 [ Slide.]
7 MR. WILLIAMS: There's been some concern expressed 8 about the number of maintenance work orders that remain to be
~
9 done after restart, and you'll notice on this slide the total 10 of those, 2293. They've been carefully reviewed by us and 11 members of your staff have reviewed the procedure that we used
-12 to review these maintenance work orders to determine whether 13 or not they're required for restart, and we've determined that 14 these are not required for restart. They are such as 146 for 15 packing adjustment, balance of plant; 1702 to install, rework 16 and replace such things as hangers, valves, pumps, do 17 painting, sanitary, drains, tags, pipe caps, lock bolts; 259 18 modifications that we've identified. The majority of these 19 can be done and will be done while the plant is up and l
20 operating. Some of them will not be done until the next 21 outage.
22 505 of them are primary plant related; 1788 are i
23 balance of plant.
l 24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I have to say I don't think l
25 I've ever seen a list in this detail of maintenance items that l
l
'.- 17 -:
1 you intend to do at this table as long as I've been here. I
(,
1 2 commend you for that.
3 MR. WILLIAMS: And they're in the process of being 4 scheduled. We thank you for that comment.
5 CFAIRMAN ZECH: But you know you mentioned balance 6 of plant'. . I hope that that didn't mean that you're not going 7 to focus on balance of plant. Balance of plant is equally as 8 important as the steam supply system in many areas and causes 9 problems at times, so I hope that's an area you're going to 10 focus on and emphasize.
11 MR. WILLIAMS: ' I would think your point is well 12 taken, Mr. Chairman. During this outage, of the 14,000 I 13 would suspect that probably 60 percent of those were in the 14 area of balance of plant, and we are extending our QA/QC 15 program to the balance of plant to a much greater detail than
. 16 is normally found.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Very good.
18 [ Slide.]
19 MR. WILLIAMS: From June 9th the equipment that 20 failed was.one of the first things we had to address, and I 21 would like to give-you the status of that now, and Mr. John 22 Wood, the head of our systems engineering group, will present 23 this data.
24 [ Slide.]
25 MR. WOOD: Good morning, Commissioners. As you
l 18 l 1 recall, on June 9 we had a number of equipment anomalies. The
/
2 purpose of this slide is to focus back on those anomalies, 3 remembering that each one of these items we subject to a'n 4 action plan, we dealt with the NRC factfinding team, went l
5 through a rigorous evaluation of what the root causes and the 6 necessary corrective actions were for these areas.
7 As you can see, we have pumps, valves, control 8 systems and instrumentation systems that we had to deal with.
9 [ Slide.]
10 Currently, the status of the actions that we needed 11 to complete here are listed on this slide. And of the 15 12 design modifications, all the field work can be reported to be 13 complete. We have testing remaining on those modifications 14 for the aux feedwater system and the main feedpump turbines.
15 We al so have completed all 13 of the maintenance and 16 replacement activities that were identified out of the root 17 cause identification, and we have completed three of the five 18 procedural training issues; the only two remaining there are 19 awaiting proper plant conditions so that we can train the 20 operators with full steam pressure on the aux feedpump turbine 21 trip throttle valve, and also test the PORV once we get into 22 Mode 3.
23 (Slide.]
24 Now I'd like to elaborate a little bit on one of 25 these issues; that being the main feedpump turbine, and
. 19 1 perhaps this will answer the Chairman's concerns dealing with 2 the control circuitry problems that we've experienced of late.
3 To focus back first for a brief history on the main 4 feedpump turbines, in the 1984 refueling outage which actually 5 ended in January of 1985, Toledo Edison installed a new 6 control system, that being the GE MDT-20 system, to increase 7 the reliability of our feedpump controls. We installed this 8 on both our turbines during that outage.
9 On April 24th, 1985, we had experienced after a 10 reactor trip, a spurious trip of the main feedpump turbine
{
11 1-1. We were never able to positively identify the cause of 12 that particular trip. Then on June 2nd, which was, of course, just prior to our event, we again, after the reactor trip --
13
\
14 and that needs to be emphasized -- had experienced a main 15 feedpump turbine 1-1 and a 1-2 trip.
16 Now we think we have identified in this case, 17 however, that a high discharge pressure trip due to incorrect 18 setting of a rapid feedwater reducticn target speed was the 19 culprit here. And what happens here is as the plant trips 20 off, the speed of the turbines is retargeted to coincide with 21 valve positions, and that caused the pressure to go off on the 22 discharge side and trip the units.
23 Then of course on June 9th, the initiator for that 24 event was overspeed trip of the number 1 main feedpump 25 turbine. Now this, however, we have traced to have been a
.[
20 1 failed speed reference circuit board.
2 (Slide.]
3 Now since June 9th, again, we identified and 4 corrected the root cause of the 6/9/85 main feedpump turbine 5 1-1 trip. That was the failed speed reference circuit board; 6 it was actually a failed capacitor in the flow to voltage i 7 converter, and we identified that and replaced that.
1 8 We didn't stop there, however. We identified and 1
9 implemented several modifications to the control circuits and 10 to the hydraulics of the control circuits to improve its 11 performance. Now, we just were able to really get into the 12 testing of those circuits over the last six weeks or so, and-4 13 as we started the testing on low pressure steam from our aux l 14 boiler, we experienced again some spurious trips on the number 15 1 turbine.
16 Now, we have since that time designed and 17 implemented additional modifications, one being a 130 l
18 millisecond time delay in the trip second; another being we've l 19 fully instrumented both the trip logic and the parameters that l
l 20 feed that logic so that we will be able to know for much l
21 certainty what the inputs are going into the trip circuit.
22 And we've dr.te additional testing since that time that has all 23 been succestful.
. 24 I'd also like to report that just this past week, as 25 we continued our troubleshooting, we found that we had a
. . - - + - , ,,-,,--.--,.,-ww--. - , , . -
l *
, 21 1 ground in one of the relays in the number 1 circuit, so we're 2 hoping that that will indeed explain a lot of the spurious 3 activity that we've had with that turbine.
4 MR. WILLIAMS: That was a bit pin on the multi-pin 5 connector.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Is it fair to say then that 7 you feel you understand now the problems in speed controlling I 8 for the main feedpump?
9 MR. WOOD: Yes, we understand it and we can 10 demonstrate it to the best of our ability with the present 11 plant conditions. Now, the real proof is yet to be shown. As 12 we get to the power escalation of course we have to tie it 13 into the ICS system and we have to run the turbines at about 14 40 percent power until you really can judge that the system is 15 actuating properly.
16 Now of course, you can never guarantee that you're 17 not going to have a trip of the thing from some reason that 18 has escaped all of us, but with the monitoring system and the 19 instrumentation package that we have installed, we feel that 20 we will very quickly be able to pinpoint any problems and be 21 able to get in there and correct any difficulties that we 22 should experience. If we, indeed, experience any difficulties 23 from this point forward.
24 MR. WILLIAMS: It's so configured that during the 25 test program, through which we'll go, if we have problems
22 1 we're going to know this time where it is. Furthermore, what 2 we've done on the fault locating is to have designed, and we 3 will be installing, a permanent system that will identify 4 problems in the future rather than the system that we now 5 have; tend to both main feedpumps for this purpose.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Is there a single element or 7 a very small number of elements that you think underlie the 8 problem with the speed contrclier?
9 MR. WOOD: Well of course, if you go back to the 10 original June 9th event, we think we have identified that, and 11 that was the failed capacitor. That's essentially a certainty 12 there. And whether we can ever prevent a failed capacitor 13 again, of course, no one can say that.
14 But as far as the rest of the circuitry, we think we 15 have pinpointed several areas that we have corrected; one 16 which is a thrust ware detector pressure. We have seen 17 spiking of that pressure as we would change mode of operations i 18 of the pump, start a backup oil pump. And we know the 19 magnitude of those spikes and have adjusted the pressure 20 upward to accomodate that. And also, this time delay that I 21 spoke of earlier should give us that little bit of cushion l
22 that is often needed for spurious actuation contacts and that 23 type of thing.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So there are really several 25 items.
l L
. 23 1 MR. WILLIAMS: We found a lot in the process, and 2 the test program is designed to find anything else and we just 3 have to get on with the test program, and that will be done 4 after we leave Mode 5 and go on up. I hope we have them all.
5 MR. WOOD: That's all my presentation.
6 [ Slide.]
7 MR. WILLIAMS: As you know, we had the very 8 large-scale system review and test program at the cost of some 9 $50 million. That was under Mr. Hildebrandt's purview, and I 10 would like for him to speak briefly to that.
11 MR. HILDEBRANDT: Gcntlemen, the last time we met we 12 discussed in some detail tha system review and test program.
13 I won't go through it again now, but just briefly remind you 14 that the system review and test program was for the 34 systems 15 important to safe operation of the plant, and it includes 16 systems beyond those traditionally or classically called 17 safety-related in the plant; it includes such things as the 18 main steam system, main feedwater systems.
l 19 The review was done using the most capable people
[ 20 available in the industry, teams of these people, and they l
21 went and identified and resolved problems found in the process 22 of that review. There were 350 items that were determined to 23 be required to be resolved; 153 of those were determined were 24 needed to be resolved prior to restart of the unit; one of 25 those is yet to be completed in Mode 5 and that will be done
. 24 1 shortly. 200 of those will be done after restart of the unit.
2 Now, the graduation exam, if you will, for the unit 3 is the test program which we're currently in. We're near 4 completion of the test program in Mode 5. The Admiral went 5 over earlier with you the status of the number of tests in 6 that program.
7 (Slide.]
8 The next slide provides some examples of important 9 problems found during the system review and test program.
10 I'll go through those briefly. Inadequate ventilation of 11 service water pumps and motors. Inoperable control room 12 emergency ventilation system. Improperly wired containment 13 air cooler fan, and less than design capacity for these fans. '
14 Improper wire wrap technique was used in the steam and 15 feedwater rupture control system equipment cabinets, which was 16 originally a vendor problem; improper technique by the 17 vendor. Inadequate performance testing requirements for 18 safety-related heat exchangers and pumps. Inadequate testing 19 of the main steam isolation valve and atmospheric vent i
20 valves. And lack of configuration control on the safety 21 feature actuation system that we found as we were attempting 22 to make modifications to that system.
23 Now, these are in the short term and have been 24 resolved. Each of these has been resolved. An example of a 4
25 long-term item that is not required to be completed prior to
. 25 1- restart but will be in process over the next year is a 2 complete review and improvement in the reliability overall of 3 the instrument air system in the plant. This is as an 4 example of the type of thing we'll be getting into over the 5 next year.
, 6 (Slide.]
7 As you may recall, we have a major configuration 8 management program underway at a cost of about $25 million to 9 gain complete understanding of the detailed design and design 10 basis for the plant and document that. A part of that 11 configuration management program, which we have not discussed 12 in the past, is the design transition, and this is to bring 13 the design control of the plant inhouse at Davis Besse, and 14 to perform then the design engineering for modifications to 15 the plant at the site.
16 Now, the task required to attain this capability is, 17 one, to establish the design basis for the plant via preparation of detailed system descriptions which include the 18 19 detailed design basis and operability matrix, et cetera, for 20 the plant. The system descriptions in combination with the 21 design criteria then permit you a basis upon which to make 22 modifications to the plant later on. We also then require the 23 staffing and the training of that staff. We're well on our 24 way towards staffing the design capabilities that the Admiral 25 mentioned to you earlier.
?. 26
, 1 And lastly, the transfer of the design documentation 2 from Bechtel and other engineering services firms that have 3 been used in the past, with the many thousands of documents 4 involved with that. We have in place aov a CAD work station 5 installed. We're in the process of vendor drawing and 6 technical manual inventory and review. We're in the process 7 of transferring 550 design specifications and 17,000 design 8 document mylars.
9 Now future activities are to develop and implement a 10 detailed design transfer plan, and transfer the remainder of 11 the documentation and calculations, and develop a detailed Q 12 component list and perform a technical review to establish the 13 acceptability of the control maintenance of design documents 14 at Toledo Edison.
15 [ Slide.)
16 The next slide just gives you a feeling for the 17 number of design documents that will be turned over from 18 Bechtel in this case. This is the architect engineer for the 19 plant. There are other documents turned over then from the 20 NSSS supplier.
21 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. As a matter of fact, about 22 60,000 vendor drawings are being reviewed for applicability.
. 23 [ Slide.]
24 In addition to the 34 system review, we made ?.n 25 intensive study of the decay heat removal capability at Davis
O
$ 27 1 Besse, plant specific. And we determined that yes, we did 2 have the capability with the existing system but we needed 3 more facility than our cyctem now gives us. And we committed 4 to you to make some changes in the plant. And at that time, 5 we were visualizing the installation of blowdown valves on the 6 steam generator legs.
7 We have gone into full-scale analysis of what's 8 needed there and we have determined that that may not be, and 9 probably will not be, what we do. But we remain committed to 10 do it, and I would like for Mr. Suchil Jain, who was in charge 11 of that study, to bring you up to date on that commitment.
12 MR. JAIN: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I am 13 Suchil Jain. I would like to talk about the decay heat 14 capability that the Admiral mentioned. Since the June 9th 15 event we have made lots of changes to the systems involved 16 with decay heat removal; namely, the aux feedwater system, the r
17 steam feed rupture control system, main feedwater system, and l
> 18 also the primary side feed and bleed cooling. We demonstrated 19 that we do have feed and bleed cooling capability using 20 existing equipment; the makeup pumps and the PORV, at Davis 21 Besse.
22 And we further looked at what else could be done to l
23 enhance that capability. And previously we discussed the l
l 24 blowdown valves at the top of the steam generators to provide l
l 25 significant depressurization so as to use the HPI pumps at s
L
- = -
.- 28 1 Davis Besse. And all the analyses that we have done so far 2 demonstrate that we lose too much inventory from the RCS, 3 which is contradictory to what you would expect after a loss 4 of feedwater event where you would want to maintain adequate 5 core cooling. And also, we were having difficulty in sizing a 4
6 particular size of the valve, because what you were finding 7 was that if you change the size of the valve or the operation 8 time, you might change what the plant response was going to 9 be.
10 (Slide.]
,11 Sc we are thinking of 1 coking at other options as to 12 what can be done to improve this capability. And the types of i - 13 areas that we're looking at, the first one obviously is 1
(
14 blowdown, and in terms of blowdown we have looked at the hot 15 legs of the steam generators, we also looked at the reactor 16 vessel head and also the pressurizer.
17 In terms of injection, we have looked at the 18 replacement of the low head HPI pumps with high head HPI 19 pumps; addition of an independent HPI pump separate from the i
20 existing HPI pumps, and somehow increase the makeup system 21 capacity.
! 22 Our expectations are that we will somehcw be 23 enhancing this capability by improving our injection 24 capabilities, rather than going to the blowdown.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: How are you making that
29 1 judgment? Which criteria basically are you using in deciding 2 which of the various options you want to pursue?
3 MR. JAIN: We have come up with several objectives 4 as to what we really want this capability to have. The first 5 one is to have adequate core level after the system is 6 initiated; and the second one is that the core should not go 7 saturated, and then it should not pose enough burden on the 8 operator or reluctance on the operators to initiate that 9 particular system. These are some other criteria.
10 There are others in there; for example, how will it 11 fit with the existing facilities and will it cause too much 12 operator training burden and things like that.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Do you have any sense yet of 14 the generic applicability of some of the things you've been 15 studying hero to B&W plants? I suspect it's a bit early to 16 reach a final judgment, but it sounds like what you're up to 17 here may he of interest to other plants as well.
18 MR. JAIN: What we have found so far.through l 19 analyses is somewhat unique becauta most of tho design basis
(
20 type of conditions, is usually a LOCA occurs at time zero. In 21 this case, though, we have a lost of feedwater first and then l
l 22 a LOCA. We are creating a LOCA by opening the blowdown valve, I
l 23 which is a different transient and that time duration is l 24 different because you keep on adding heat to the system.-
l l 25 And so it's hard to say whether it has some
(
l
. 30 1 applicability or not, but we will do -- we will reassess 2 that.
3 [ Slide.]
4 Next I want to talk about the B&W owners group 5 safety and performance improvement program. We are very 6 actively and very aggressively involved in this program, 7 because we think so many of the recommendations that are 8 coming out of it will enhance the safety of the plant at Davis 9 Besse as well as other B&W plants.
10 The overall objective of the program is to reduce 11 the number of trips, and also have trips which have acceptable 12 plant responses, and the goal is to reduce the number of trips 13 to less than two per year and to reduce the number of complex 14 transients to .1 per plant year, based on a two-year average.
15 We expect that a total of 500 recommendations will 16 be coming out of the program. So far, 95 have been issued, 17 and as you see in the breakup on the slide, we have 57 under 18 evaluation; 11 of them under implementation and 27 of them 19 closed, which is significantly beyond what the owners' group
- 20 averages.
21 The other point I need to make is that so many of 22 these recommendations that we expect to come out of the 23 program have already been implemented basically, because some 24 of the NUREG-1154 recommendations are being factored into the 25 safety performance improvement program and will be much more
. 31 1- ahead than others because most of those things have already 2 been implemented at Davis Besse.
3 And we are proud of our record as to what we have
, 4 done so far as a result of NUREG-1154 as well as the safety in 5 performance improvement program.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Based upon what you expect 7 to see out of that program in the future, would you expect 8 that kind of record to centinue in terms of basically 9 following through on the majority of recommendations at least, 10 if not all of them, that come out of the owners' group?
11 MR. JAIN: Yes. Correct.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good.
13 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Suchil is going to have to live
,1 14 with those recommendations because he's helping generating 15 them, you see, and that's -- he's very actively involved in 16 that.
17 [ Slide.]
18 Along the way after June 9th, we had these emergent ,
19 issues. We've already discussed the system review. Now, the 20 motor-operated valve are a part of the June 9th problem, but 21 when we go into the motor-operated valves we found so many 22 things wrong with them that they became a special case, and it 23 really was an emergent. problem in my mind.
24 If you recall, the problems ranged from steam 25 diameters that were not what the design called for, wiring was
.. l 32 1 improper, the lubrication was improper, the packing was not in l
{
2 accordance with design; we had to de-energize the heaters and 3 they did not meet environmental qualifications. And we have 4 completed our review of tha.t and on a generic basis, I feel 5 that the industry as a whole needs to take a very hard look at 6 motor-operated valves. And until they investigate every area 7 as we have, no one, in my mind, can say that they do not have 8 problems with motor-operated valves. And that's the point I 9 wanted to make about this area.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: You're confident you've investigated 11 and taken proper action as ftr as your motor-operated valves 12 are concerned.
13 MR. WILLIAMS: The 165 associated with the primary 14 plant, and we're going right on in to the balance of plant.
15 We've got quite a few of those done. But what you find in 16 those is surprising.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But you are going to move through 18 the balance of plant, also.
l 19 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, we are.
l l
20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:. All right.
21 (Slide.]
l 22 MR. WILLIAMS: The pipe support. As you know, we I
I 23 agreed with the NRC to do seven systems, all of those in f
24 containment; to inspect those and make the corrections that 25 were necessary. We've done that, we've met our commitments l
l l
. 33
> 1 for restart but that's an ongoing program and we will not be 2 through with that probably for the next 18 months. We're 3 still surveying all hangers outside containment on a schedule 4 that has been agreed to with the NRC.
t 5 Environmental qualification program has been 6 completed. Raychem, as I said, has been completed; the fire 7 protection program is in accord with the desires, so the NRC 4
8 Staff are in agreement. We submitted our program and we made 9 quite an investment during this outage in improving our fire i
10 protection capability, and we have a good deal more scheduled 11 to do.
12 The wire wrap terminations were an emergent 13 problem. Reactor coolant pump shafts had to be replaced, all 14 four of them, and we've done that. You asked about one of the 15 problems -- any problems that are left. We've rolled those 16 pumps, and one of them, when we shut it off, we have a slight 17 squeal in it. And we think we know where that is and we don't 18 consider that to be a problem but we're going back in and 19 investigating and taking some clearance measurements of that.
20 And that's one of the issues.
21 The strike intervene, and that was an emergent 22 issue. Didn't plan on that. And then emergency planning 23 became somewhat of a problem when FEMA asked us to include 24 Lucas County into our emergency plan. Our emergency plans 25 that we had in place are very effective, and we've i
l
- i
'. 34 l l
1 demonstrated that and FEMA was in agreement and so was your 2 staff, but we did not have a fullblown plan for Lucas County.
3 And we've instituted an interim plan, a memorandum of 4 understanding that was exercised in the last site drill that 5 we had last month. And it is considered to be effective while 6 we put the fullblown plan into place. It will be in place and 7 ready for a drill in March of 1987. And we are on the 8 schedule that FEMA agreed to. So we feel comfortable with 9 that.
10 Emergency evacuation review team. We have made our 11 presentation to them, we have completed the training, or the 12 state has completed the training of the schoolbus drivers in 13 our area, and we've had in the main very good response from
'(
14 all of the drivers, both to the training and their attitudes.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Joe, are you satisfied with 16 these motor-operated valves that you not only now have them 17 all in good working order, but that you have a maintenance 18 system that will be adequate over the long haul?
19 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, we do. I'd like for Phil 20 Hildebrandt to speak to that.
21 [ Slide.]
22 MR. HILDEBRANDT: We have gone through and 23 formalized the entire motor-operated valve business. Gone 24 through and laid out what the design requirements --
25 re-reviewed, revisited and now re-documented the design basis
35 1 for every valve in the plant. The differential pressure 2 across the valve, flow requirements, et cetera.
3 The valves are now set up using the MOVATS 4 equipment, which is a piece of test equipment, in accordance 5 with those requirements. And now there are periodic 6 maintenance requirements on every one of those valves. A very 7 tight, complete program; we're very confident in those valves 8 and their ability to operate.
9 MR. WILLIAMS: You've also adopted new leak test 10 technique, have you not?
11 MR. SMITH: If I may help, sir. Steve Smith, the
-12 maintenance manager. We have established procedures that 13 combine the electrical and mechanical inspection of each of 14 the operators. There are five different sizes, there are five J
15 different procedures. There's approximately a 60-month 16 rotating maintenance and inspection cycle for the balance of 4
17 the plant, non-safety related, and a 36-month cycle for those 18 that are safety-related.
19 The unit that we inspect those valves with is called 4
20 MOVATS, and that's motor-operated valve actuation test 21 system. It is a diagnostics unit that tells you exactly i
22 what's going on; the loading in the motor operator, the 23 'various currents and forces that are attained. We combine 24 that with a lubrication and inspection program each time we do 25 that work.
, - . - - - - - - , _ _ _ - - ,,,.,,.,-_..,y..,-,_,,,y-,..,,,-,.-v
_v,, , y .-,____,_,.,-_-___....__4_._,__.-___.____,,_,w. __,r,------ _ . _ -.,- .
I 1
. 36 1 Any time we adjust a valve packing or do a valve 2 repair or in any way change the characteristics of the valve 3 that could affect the operator, we go back and check it with 4 the MOVATS unit, also.
5 And this is one area where we've had a great deal of 6 involvement and support from Engineering. They helped us to 7 develop the program and to implement the program.
8 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Will you share all of this 9 with B&W owners group?
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Good point.
11 MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely, sir.
12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I certainly hope you will.
13 MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, we will. We are in the process 14 of documenting what we've done in the area of motor-operated 15 valves, and where are you in that now?
16 MR. HILDEBRANDT: That's being prepared. I'm not 17 sure of the exact schedule at this moment but it's being 18 prepared. I expect it will be within a couple of months we'll 19 have a report put together --
20 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Well, that's not proprietary 21 information; you can share that --
l l 22 MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, sure.
l 23 MR. HILDEBRANDT: It's entirely ours. The layout --
l 24 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: I certainly encourage you to i
j 25 do that.
l L
! _ - __ -.___,- _ _ __-.__ . - . , , _ _ .__-,.-- - ~ . - - . ,
37 1 MR. HILDEBRANDT: Lay out what we have done and the 2 results of what we have done are available to the industry.
4 3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: And what you have done, I 4 take it, is fairly unique, based on some of the comments you 5 made earlier. I gather that you think that others will 1
6 benefit from what you've done.
7 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. Now, that doesn't say that 8 MOVATS hasn't been used before. It was in use in some other 9 plants, the testing. But I think the degree to which we've 10 investigated these valves is probably greater than you'll find 11 anyplace else. Now, we're talking Velan valves, too. We have 12 no experience except with two cases, and who made those? Is 13 that right, Steve?
14 MR. SMITH: Limitorque makes our motor-operated 15 valves. We have shared the information with the industry 16 through the INPO workshops that we participate in. We have
- 17 also disseminated that information in procedure form to l 18 utilities that we work more closely with in a lot of areas.
19 By the end of the year we will have a complete paper prepared i 20 which we will present and give to each of the utilities.
21 Also, Mr. Pete Wold of Region III of the NRC is very 22 deeply involved in our program with us, and he is l 23 disseminating information throughout the region.
l 24 MR. HILDEBRANDT: And an information notice we l
25 understand is about to be revised that puts on the street our 1- ._ _- -
. 38
- 1. latest experience with the delta P and flow testing, where we 2 ran into some surprises that we didn't expect. And that i 3 information will be coming out shortly. There's a letter in 4 preparation at this very moment on that specific issue to be 5 provided to the Commission for their incorporation in a 6 bulletin.
1 7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: And this information 8 really just has industry-wide applicability, doesn't it?
9- Certainly not just B&W plants.
10 MR. WILLIAMS: It sure does.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Motor-operated valves 12 throughout the industry, and probably all of them, need a lot 13 of attention.
(
14 MR. WILLIAMS: That's right.
f 15 (Slide.]
! 16 We're very pleased with the way our training has 17 progressed at Davis Besse. As you know, we've put in our ;
1 l 18 maintenance training laboratories and the mechanics are very
~
19 pleased to receive the type of training that they.are 20 receiving. And one of the areas in which our Manager of 21 Training I think is to be complimented is the accreditation 22 program. Ha pulled that schedule back and now we're ahead of schedule with accreditation in all ten areas of the letter i
23 24 required to be accreditation by the Institute of Nuclear Power 25 Operations. And he's done a fine job there.
1 1., . -. .-- -- - - - , - . _ . - -. , , - - - - -
39 1 (Slide.]
2 To look at the cost of what has been done, you get a 3 feel for the magnitude of the effort. The 34 system review, 4 $39.3 million. Thirteen areas of investigation of June the 5 9th, $13.4. Fire protection, $15.2. Pipe and supports, 6 $14.7. Configuration management, $8.5. We had to back off on 7 that a little bit. That plant manager won't let the walkdown 8 teams get into the plant because he can't get the plant 9 started, so we've held off on that. We'll start up again once 10 it starts.
1 11 The procedure effort, generating the procedures, 12 $6.3 million. Environmental qualification program $5.2.
13 Raychem problem, $6.6, and reactor coolant pumps, $14.5.
14 [ Slide.]
15 INPO training accreditation, $8.2 million. And EZP 16 upgrade, sirens and facilities for the community are $2.8 17 million. And then of course you go on down to the fuel oil, 18 power plant cleanup and so forth, and we're at $167 million.
19 (Slide.]
i 20 For post-restart, this is our estimate of what's 21 required in each of these areas. We're constructing the rad 22 waste facility now, the low-level one, and it's probably 30 23 percent complete, and at $2.3 million. We have a training
, 24 simulator -- we're in contract for a training simulator to be N 25 delivered in the early part of 1989; that's $8.5 million.
l
. 40 i l
(
l Complete the hanger reinspections in Mod 4.3. Control room i 2 design, $1. And you can see as we go on down what the big l 3 swingers are and what we have yet to do to complete the course 4 of action that we laid out for you in September 1985.
5 And then we have an additional $25.2 million in 6 1988, and $12.2 million in 1989, and a great deal of that has 7 to do with fire protection.
8 (Slide.)
9 You asked, Mr. Chairman, the last time we were here 10 if we were going to use anything special to start the plant up 11 and the answer was yes, we are going to use a special approach 12 to criticality this time and to the whole business of bringing
, 13 the plant on. I'd like for Mr. Bill O'Connor to talk a little 14 bit about the operational aspects of this.
15 (Slide.]
16 MR. O'CONNOR: Good morning, Mr. Commissioners. A i
17 the Admiral stated, we said that we would update you on our 18 license exams and requalification exams when we came back this 19 time, for 1986. We had four senior reactor operators take 20 their exam this past summer, all four passed. And our requal I
21 exams were just completed two weeks ago and 35 out of 36 i
22 operators passed their exam; one reactor operator did not pass 23 his requal exam and has been removed from licensed duties 24 until we can get his accelerated requal program completed.
- x. 25 I might note that the industry average on requal l
i i
---,,a~w--,.,---,-----,,--,n- ---,a.-,.,.n.,. ,n- ,_,----,.,.---w-_--,~_,, -.---.,-,,--nn,.,-,.,- - . . -,-n--_- -
---~.,-,g, . - - - - . - ~
. 41 1 exams is about 82 percent pass rate and we're very proud of 2 our 91.8 percent overall average in the requal exams. Our 3 operators are_very professional and work very hard to keep 4 their requalification status and their knowledge of the plant.
5 (Slide.]
6 We also stated that we would prepare a special 7 procedure for power escalation. We have a plant procedure 8 numbered 1102.95 which is our controlling procedure for power 9 escalation. This is very similar to what the newer plants 10 utilize in their control for power escalation. We have many 11 approvals in the prerequisites that the Company Nuclear Review 12 Board concurred with the Senior Vice President. All the 13 various groups on the station, the Station Review Board, the 14 group directors, the various managers and ultimately the plant 15 manager must sign off for their areas to state that yes, the 16 unit is ready for restart. That gives the plant back to me in .
i 17 operations, and I must ensure that the operational readiness 18 is proper.
19 We have completed all the requal training.for the l
20 licensed operators; we sent them all back to the simulator and 21 completed simulator training, which we did a little different 22 this year. Rather than focus mostly on emergency type 23 procedures and dealing with casualties, we spent quite a bit 24 more time on routine evolutions, routine startups and
- s 25 evolutions of this nature since it's been a long time since i
I .
. 42 1 we've'had the plant at power.
2 (Slide.]
3 We've completed all of our modification and 4 procedure change training for the operators, with the 4
5 exception of a couple minor facility changes which will be 6 completed this week. The next item called maximum annunciator 7 availability -- what this really means is a black board once 8 the unit is at power. We've looked into all the logic of the
. 9 troublesome annunciators and made these so that they are valid 10 alarms and not nuisance alarms to the operators.
11 Of course the last one, that the restart test 12 program must be completed and accepted through Mods 3 before
. g- 13 we will take the reactor critical.
4 14 [ Slide.]
15 To augment our control room and operator staff, in 16 addition to our normal shifts during the entire startup we A
17 will have an additional SRO in the control roca, an additional l 18 RO in the control room, one additional equipment operator in 19 each of the four plant zones on top of the normal equipment 20 operators. Operations management which includes myself, my 1 21 aux superintendent, aux engineering supervisor and aux 22 supervisor, are also on rotating shifts right now, working i
23 with the shift supervisor so that he has a more senior l
j 24 management person there at all times to answer anything that i 25 may come up.
i i
i
.. , - , , , . . _ _ _ _ , _ _ - _ , _ . - _ ~ _ _ _ _ . . . . , - . . _ . , _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _
, 43 1
1 of course, we hold pre-shift briefings on any 2 evolution that's going to go on before the evolution takes 3 place to make sure that all of us are aware of all the 4 implications of the test that's going on and what if things 5 don't go exactly as the test procedures.
6 We recently changed our approach to criticality 7 procedures due to the seemingly increasing numbers of '
8 inadvertent criticalities in the recent past. We are now 9 using a formal " pull and wait" procedure where you pull the 10 reg rods, a specific percentage, then wait for the count rate i
11 to in fact come up and stabilize prior to the next pull. We 12 feel that this will prevent any inadvertent criticality at the 13 Davis Besse station.
s 14 We have management hold and review points; at about 15 5 percent power I call it the Mode 1 transition; 40 percent 16 which allows us, as John said, to tect both main feedpumps so 17 that only one is needed to puup the feedwater; you could be
~
18 running tests on the other one. The 75 and 90 percent holds 19 coincide with our fuel conditioning holds, and of course, any 20 abnormalities which may occur during the startup we will stop 21 and resolve these prior to continuing with the power 1
22 escalation and startup 23 (Slide.)
24 The final slide that I have are the tests that will 25 be conducted as we go through this power escalation. We have
. 44 1 an integrated steam feed rupture control test which will test 2 the SFRCS in all the various modes, cross-connecting it to the 3 opposite side, a normal trip of the system and so on.
4 We also have a very detailed integ' rated control i 5 system tuning procedure which we will accomplish as the plant 6 is escalated up in power. You can read through the rest of 7 the tests culminating in our full power turbine trip. Once 8 the unit up to 100 percent power and stabilized we're going to 9 trip the unit and verify that all of these other things do 10 function properly and we should have a routine reactor trip.
11 (Slide.)
12 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the*:e are three things 13 that are concerning me right now about getting out of Mode 5 14 to -- well, bringing the plant critical, starting it up. The 15 auxiliary feedpump governor valves in the test program that 16 we've been conducting are sticking, and we have them 17 disassembled today and I think we're on to the problem that 18 carbine packing seems to be -- the solvent that we've been 19 using to clean the valves, the mechanical parts of the valve, 20 has been leaching the binder out of the carbine packing, 21 forming a glue on the shaft, thereby gluing the packing to the 22 shaft and that's what we think today. If we don't resolve it 23 by -- if that doesn't turn out to be the case we'll probably 24 go in and relieve the clearances on any of the carbine packing 25 or the shaft, preferably the carbine packing.
. 45 l' Now we have the decay heat loop number 2 check valve 2 coming off the reactor -- that's a diagram of it -- that is 3 leaking. It has a history of leaking until you bring the 4 plant up in temperature and pressure. I believe that that 5 will stop when it does; if it doesn't, I'll have to put the 6 plant back down and take about eight days to go in there and 7 do whatever has to be done to that check valve. But 8 historically, that valve has leaked until the plant has been 9 heated up and pressure raised, and I hope that that does it.
10 Radiation monitors will not prevent me -- we have 11 two radiation monitors in containment. Each has a normal 12 range and a high range. One of them is in complete 13 operation. That's all I need to change modes. The
(-
14 manufacturer of these units is out of business. Spare parts 15 are hard to come by. We have two identical ones in the stack 16 and we have taken the parts from one in the stack and we are 17 in the process of repairing and calibrating the one in the 18 containment. We have also scavenged enough parts through 19 industry that we'll be able to get the two stacked ones in 20 operation prior to the 28th. I don't require those for mode 21 change but we'll have it all in operation by the 28th.
22 And so, if I can have the schedule slide, --
23 (Slide.)
24 I'd like to move into Mode 4 on the 25th; intending
- 25 to go critical on the 16th of December. And we are asking i
i
1 .
r- ,
.. 46 1 your permission to do that and continue the test program and 2 get this plant back on line, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the 3 assistance that the NRC has given us in getting to this point.
] 4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Before we call 5 the staff up, do my fellow commissioners have any questions 6 for the Davis Besse people?
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Just a couple. Emergency l
8 planning. You mentioned the Lucas County effort you've made '
, 9 since FEMA identified that problem. Could you sort of briefly 10 highlight what the interim measures are? Are they now in l 11 effect and are you still on track for an exercise early next 12 year that would include verifying the adequacy of the f
13 emergency planning measures for Lucas County at that time?
14 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. The memorandum of 15 understanding calls for an upgrade of the sirens in Jerusalem -
16 Township which is that little piece just inside Lucas County.
17 If you recall, you and I have discussed this before. And it 18 also provides for the communications facilities with the 19 emergency control center for normal casualties -- not normal, I
20 I'm sorry -- for other hazards. And we have provided those 21 communications facilities, l
i 22 Wo have trained, if you will, the county supervisors
- 23 and the people there in what's needed to be done. And we did 24 exercise that facility on our last site drill last month, and l 25 FEMA observed that. They didn't grade it, but they observed I
. _ - . . . . - - _ . . , . _ _ _ , _ . . , _ _ _ _ , - - _.--_.,__,,,___m , - _ , . _ _ _ _ _., , _ ., _ _._ .__, m -__ . _ _ ,
. 47 1 it.
2 The schedule that we submitted to FEMA for the 3 production of a fullblown Lucas County plan and the training 4 of all the participants in that plan has been approved by FEMA 5 and it is on schedule. And we're doing such a good job on 6 that plan that Ottawa County now is saying, you know, you're 7 going to have to update our plan so that it's as good as Lucas 8 County's, so we'll be into that, too.
9 But we feel very comfortable about the efficacy of 10 the plans that we do have, the ability of the Lucas County 11 officials and our people to operate with the memorandum of 12 understanding, and our ability to produce on schedule as we 13 promised FEMA.
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good. And the exercise, I 15 take it, is sometime in what, March next year?
16 MR. WILLIAMS: March of next year.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay. Second question on 18 emergency planning. The bus drivers. I take it from what you 19 said that the training has now been done and that issue is 20 taken care of in terms of the training and qualification of 21 bus drivers?
22 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. May I have that slide?
23 (Slide.)
24 Benton Carroll was completed on the 5th of 25 November. There were 45 trained, and in the questionnaire
'. 48 1 that we put out we had a question in there that asked did they 2 feel that the training had really equipped them to handle this 3 problem. We had 43 positive critiques out of the 45; there 4 were 2 negative. Port Clinton completed the training on the 5 17th; 18 positive, 2 negative. And we don't have the results 6 of the others but they have been completed. Lucas County was 7 completed on 11/13; 40 positive and no negative. So we're 8 getting good response.
9 You always have the one or two that say, you know, 10 I'm not going to go back in there, I'm not going to 11 participate, I don't understand radioactivity, but when the 12 chips are down and the children are in there, I'll bet you 13 those two will get in there, too, commissioner.
\
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: One question each for 15 Mr. Smart and Mr. Ginn. Paul, when I was out at the site 16 recently we talked about the longstanding commitment of the 17 company. You've accomplished a lot, an awful lot has been 18 done, you've invested a great deal in the changes that have 19 been in the facility. But you've got a long way to go in 20 terms of other things that are committed for future years.
21 I think one of the important things over the past 22 year has been the senior management commitment of the company 23 to get the job done and to make sure that the plant staff and 24 the support organizations have the resources and the support f
25 and the encouragement that they need to get the job done. Is
. 49 1 that going to continue after the plant starts up, if we 2 authorize it, and out for the futura years to close out some 3 of the items that Joe and Suchil and the others have 4 identified that still need to be done over time?
5 MR. SMART: Yes. I would say that top management 6 has learned a lot as a result of this experience, too. And 7 what we've learned is that in this deal you don't do it unless 4
8 you do it right. And we're going to continue to do it right.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Okay..And Bob, I'd like 10 to ask you the same question in terms of the holding company; 11 whether that same commitment is there on your part and the 12 holding company's part to ensure that that kind of effort and l - 13 management support and resources is going to continue in tho 14 future years as well.
15 MR. GINN: Yes. And I obviously have not had the 16 familiarity with Davis Besse. Our policy when we formed the 17 holding company in the spring was to provide the resources to 18 Paul and Joe and, in effect, get out of their way, and we'll
- 19 continue to do that. And I see Jim Keppler is here; he might i
20 just comment if he cared to, or you might ask him later on 21 about the commitment that we have had to Perry. And we intend i 22 to make that same kind of commitment, and have got that same 23 kind of commitment, to Davis Besse.
24 Obviously, nuclear is very important to this 25 company. Most of our assets are tied up in these two plants I
-r __ r._ . - - - - - , - . - - . . _ . . _, y.----,-.,y,_._.w--,--,,,.%.. , , , , , , , . , ,, _ - -_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , . r.-
-. ._ - ~ = . - . . --. - ~._ .- .
s >
, . 50
, 1 and so to Centerior Energy it's important that the top ,
3 ,_
2 management, Dick Miller and myself and *our financial people !
3 and everybody recognize the importance of these two plants to 4 our survival and our ability to provide energy.to the people 5 of northern Ohio.
1
, 6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Thanks very much. Those 7 are my only questions.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you. Commissioner Bernthal?
I 9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I don't have any further
- lo questions. Commissioner Asselstine has raised a key point in 11 my judgment, and the point having been raised I will offer 12 some encouragement. I realize that those numbers you j- 13 presented add up to something in the neighborhood, as a rough l 14 guess at least, of $200 million or $250 million when 4
15 everything is done that you've committed to do. And I trust [
16 will be done.
] 17 The cost-benefit on that, however, will look very
- j 18 good if you even save many months of operation in the years 19 ahead. By the normal reckoning, it's a million dollars a day ,
I 20 when you're down and I suspect you know that and feel it more 21 acutely than anybody else by now. This has been a big a
22 axpenditure but it's been a big expenditure in the future, in j 23 my judgment, and this is what it takes. And I suspect it will i
24 pay handsome dividends in the future in good plant operations, i 25 and I'm looking forward to seeing that. I hope we see it. I 1
. 51 1 Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. I want to thank the l 3 Toledo Edison people for your presentation, and I'd like the 4 staff to come up, please. Mr. Stallo, would you proceed?
5 MR. STELLO: Yes. In light of the detailed 6 presentation and the amount of time remaining to complete our 7 presentation to the Commission, I propose to shorten it up 8 substantially. We are, as you are aware, prepared and have 9 recommended to the Commission that we are satisfied that this 10 plant is, in fact, ready. The things that remain to be done 11 you've been briefed in significant detail on and you know 12 what those are.
13 We have more than adequate confidence that this 14 plant is, in fact, ready, and we think it has a potential to 15 be one of the best performing plants if it continues to go 16 into operation in the way they have gotten ready for the plant 17 thus far.
18 What I'd propose to do, but we are prepared to 19 answer any questions that the Commission has and to get to 20 those quickly, is to just have Mr. Keppler and Mr. Miraglia
- 21 give you very brief summaries, and we won't bother to go 22 through the slides; just give you brief summaries and then let 23 you ask whatever questions the Commission feels it needs 24 answered.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine.
--- - ~ . . _ _ - , . .- , .-,.,m._ ,7--,_ , ._,,~_,_.-._.._m., _
._. ___ -_ . ___m.._. , _ ,. .._ _
1
. l
. 52 1 MR. KEPPLER: I think the way I see the situation 2 right now is the commission has had the opportunity to hear 3 from Toledo Edison and the staff -- this is the fourth meeting 4 -- concerning the corrective action programs at Davis Besse, 5 and I know many of you have visited the site and have seen 6 firsthand the work that's gone on there.
7 So perhaps to give you a perspective from Region III 8 I would tell you that we've put in better than 1350 man days 9 of inspection into this program that you've heard. I could go 10 into detail but I think you've gotten a general appreciation 11 for the extensive effort that's been undertaken.
12 The conclusion that I would reach and draw is that 13 we believe that Admiral Williams and his staff have done a 14 very commendable job there. The problems that were associated 15 with the accident on June 9th have been fixed; a number of -
16 modifications have been made; there's been a major 17 organizational overhaul of the facility, experienced people 18 have been brought in, and I think you can see that there's a 19 very effective management team now in charge. And I think by 20 comparison I would tell you that I don't have one better than 21 that in the region right now.
22 The testing program that has been undertaken in my 23 judgment is unprecedented. By the time the plant gets up to 24 power all of the key safety-related systems will have been 25 tested, the plant redemonstrated for all practical purposes,
- 53 1 and the commitments that are in place to go on over the next 2 few years, as Mr. Stallo mentioned, in our judgment could put 3 this plant as one of the best in the country.
4 So I feel very comfortable seeing the plant 5 restart. I think there will be problems in restart. You 6 should recognize that; the plant hasn't operated in the last 7 16, 17 months, but I feel they have a very conservative 8 program for the restart and they'll deal effectively with the 9 problems.
10 We're going to have a very extensive oversight on 11 the restart effort involving people from headquarters, and 12 we'll see how it goes.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine.
\
14 MR. MIRAGLIA: I'll keep my remarks even briefer. I 15 think it would just be redundant to repeat Jim's remarks. I 16 think one point I'd like to emphasize -- they not only dealt 17 with the problems that came out of the event and that we '
18 identified by the IIT and then our 50.54F letter. As they 19 went through their course of action program there were these 20 emergent issues that came up and they've effectively dealt 21 with those -- motor-operated valves, Raychem and the like.
22 I think the staff is catisfied that the evaluations 23 have been dono and we feel that they've dealt with the issues 24 that came out of the ovent and we're ready to see the plant 25 restart. And as Jim said, there is going to be an augmented
. 54 1 inspection with assistance from headquarters and we're going 2 to. carefully watch the restart of Davis Besse.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Question from
> 4 my fellow Commissioners?
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Just one quick one. Jim, 6 could you highlight a little bit of the details of this fairly 7 extensive oversight process that would be involved during the 8 startup phase so we have a little better understanding of what 9 you're going to be doing?
10 MR. KEPPLER: sure. As you saw from the schedule, 11 the plant is presently in Mode 5, and startup to them is 12 heatup, Mode 4. And we have a team over there right now 13 watching the completion of the remaining hardware and
(
14 paperwork efforts that need to be done, completion of the test 15 reviews. And during each phase of the initial heatup and then 16 moving on to Mode 3 and then eventually to criticality, Mode 17 2, we will observe the completion of the activities that have 18 to be done and satisfy ourselves that the program is 19 progressing satisfactorily. And we will continue monitoring 20 with teams that I believe extend coverage to each shift -- I'm 21 not talking about 24-hour a day coverage but coverage on each 22 shift that will take place right up through to 100 percent 23 power.
24 So it's a fairly extensive effort, comparable to the 25 one that we're conducting on Fermi.
i .
55
, 1- COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Thanks. That's all I i
2 have.
i 3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let me just make a couple points.
4 First of all, I think the commitment that Mr. Smart and 5 Mr. Ginn"have given us on following through and supporting the i
6 extensive investment they've already made is very important.
7 I appreciate that. I would like to also ask Region III to l 8 specifically monitor and watch that commitment as the plant
- 9 moves forward, to see and assure ourselves that the 10 commitments are being made and will follow through.
! 11 I think there's been significant organizational l 12 changes. It would appear to me significant number of people; 13 resources, dollars also have been put into this as a i
14 significant investment and I think it's appropriate. But 15 following through is the important thing on the part of the
?
e 1
16 organization, Toledo Edison, as well as on the part of NRC. I
'1 17 think that is important and I think we should watch that as we 18 go ahead.
19 I think the briefings we've received and the way i
20 we've been able to -- the staff and the Commission have been i
- 21 able to follow the rather extensive program that Toledo Edison 22 has put in place since the incident has given us at least
. 23 reasonable confidence that there was recognition of [
j 24 improvements to be made, and that they have been and are being
} .
- 25 made. So that's something that I think we should recognize; i
. 56
-1 the way that at least I believe we've been kept informed. And
'2 also I think Region III deserves considerable credit for the 3 closeness and professional manner that they have followed
[
4 through on the Davis Besse situation.
5 I think with one final thought,.I would like to 6 commend Mr. Williams for the professional manner that he has i
7 conducted the briefings and also for the aggressive 1 8 initiatives that he has taken. I think the Toledo Edison 9 Company has been well served, and that's why I think it's l 10 important that follow-through programs be aggressively ,
11 pursued.
12 I would like now to ask all my fellow Commissioners, i'
]
13 those in favor of authorizing the Davis Besse plant and 14 authorizing to restart after the staff has been satisfied that l 15 final and appropriate findings and determinations have been
) 16 made, all of my fellow Commissioners in favor of allowing 17 restart under those conditions, please signify by saying aye. -
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Lando, just before you :
r il 19 vote, if you could, I'd like to make a couple of additional 20 ccmments as well. I don't know if the others do or not --
I l
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Oh certainly. I didn't mean -- I 22 thought we were finished with our comments, but certainly, go i 23 right ahead.
i i 24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I had just a couple I l
} 25 wanted to make as well, and they're much in line with the i
4
_ . - - , . . - , - _ . - , , , - , _ . . - ~ . . - - _ _ . _,_______-._..-_-.__.-...,_____...m.___.___ . _ _ .-
'. 57 1 comments that you've just made.
2 I've made three visits out to Davis Besse; I think f
3 that's as much as I've seen any individual plant in the 4 country. It's one of the most -- of at least the plants I've
. 5 visited the most; once before the June 9th event and once 6 shortly after, and then once just a couple of' weeks ago to see -
7 what the situation was now. I'd have to say also that I've 8 probably been as critical as anyone about the June 9th event 9 and the things that led up to it, and that's why I'm fairly 10 pleased at being able to say some more positive things today.
11 There are a lot of things that we've heard today 1 12 that I think reflect the kinds of improvements that have 13 really gone on out there and that really serve as a model for r -
14 many others in the industry. We heard about the material
! 15 condition of the plant, and I would agree that it's vastly 16 improved over what it was before.
17 The plant is clean, but even more important in my
! 18 view, the equipment has been restored to a high quality 19 condition. I think that's terribly important and it's i 20 something that a lot of other places can learn as well.
21 I think the maintenance program is substantially i 22 improved; it's much better organized, people have the spare 23 parts, the training, the procedures, the necessary manuals to '
24 do their work, they're better supervised, there's much more 25 intensive oversight over what's going on. There's a new
.- . . - - . - . - ~ . . - - ~ . . -- . , . - - .
. 58 1 maintenance facility that's now almost completed that will put 2 them far ahead of where they've been and the company has been 3 in the past.
4 I was also real impressed the last time I was out
+
l 5 there with the warehouse operation. It looks to me like i
, 6 that's a state-of-the-art operation in terms of both the
, 7 warehouse and the spare parts organization that they now have.
8 I think one of the most important things that's l 9 impressed me is that now everybody is working as a team. The 10 whole nuclear plant operations is functioning and working l
7 11 together, the operators, the I&c technicians, the maintenance 12 people, the engineering support staff, and that's something 13 that was sadly lacking in the past. I think that's a dramatic ,
14 improvement.
15 The whole systems review and test program I think as 16 the staff has pointed out was an exhaustive and intensive
- 17 effort. I think that one serves as a model for the industry 18 as well.
19 I was particularly impressed the last time I was out i
i 20 there with the systems engineering concept; building a sense 1
21 of ownership among engineers and plant personnel for 3
22 particular systems of the plant. I think that has paid real i 23 benefits and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention one of my
- 24 favorite systems, the plant air system. I was impressed by 25 the dramatic improvements that had been made on that system.
i 1
- - - - . - - . , , - - . - - - - . , - . , _ . - - - - , . , - - ~ . . , - - - . , - , , _ _ . - _ . . . - .,,,.-_.,. . - - - - - _ , . . - - - . - ,
l
. -. 59 i 1 I was real pleased to see it.
2 The motor-operated valve program we've already Q
E 3 talked about fairly extensively. That's a state-of-the-art 4 effort I think as well. It's something that many other plants 5 could profit from, in my view.
6 I think all of those things are commendable and they
. 7 really represent a strong effort and commitment throughout the 8 plant staff. A number of the people here have worked very 9 hard but there are a lot of people that aren't here today that 10 I think at the plant have worked hard to bring about the kind 11 of improvement and changes that we've seen.
12 I guess if I had a message I'd send to the company 13 it would be just a couple of additional points. First, be
+\
14 slow, careful and cautious in your startup program. As 1
15 everybody has noted, the plant has been shut down for a long 16 period of time and I think it's very important that the i
- 17 company have as close to an error-free startup program as-
! 18 possible. .
19 Second, I think there's a lot of follow-through that 20 still needs to be done, not only in terms of money and effort
- 21 but in terms of commitment on the part of the management of I
22 the company and the plant staffs. And that's something that I i
! 23 think the company can't lose sight of, and I was pleased to j 24 hear the kinds of commitments that we heard from Mr. Smart and i
I 25 Mr. Ginn.
- _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . , . _ . , _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . _ , _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ . =
, 60 1 Configuration management, finishing up-on the -
2 maintenance efforts, focusing in on decay heat removal are key 3 elements of that, in my view. Following up on the B&W owners 4 group effort I think is also a real important one. One of the e
5 things about the B&W owners group effort that troubles me a 6 bit is that adopting the recommendations is still left as 7 pretty much a voluntary effort to the individual utilities, 8 and I'm looking for good follow-through by this company as 9 well as by all of the other companies.
10 And I think the objective of that effort has to be 11 to compensate adequately for the particular sensitivities of 12 the B&W design, with special emphasis on things like the 13 integration control system, the non-nuclear instrumentation
(-
14 and decay heat removal and auxiliary feedwater reliability.
- 15 And I would urge you to follow through on those efforts as 16 well.
l 17 And I guess the last point I would make is that the l
I 18 ultimate test of the success of all these programs is 19 performance. And what I'm looking for is good, sustained 20 performance from this plant, at least through a period of six 21 months and then extending beyond that to show us that, in 22 fact, all of this effort has done exactly what we hope it's l
23 accomplished, and that is, bring about a good, sustained 24 effort of safe plant operations.
25 The last point I would make is on emergency l - - - - ---- - - - ----- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -
~*
, 61 1 planning. I'm satisfied with what I heard about the efforts 2 on Lucas County and on the bus drivers, that you're making 3 adequate progress there. But one other area that we didn't
)
4 talk about are the broader concerns of the state of Ohio. I 5 think the state has some legitimate concerns about the 6 adequacy of emergency planning. They've set up an effort by 7 the Emergency Evacuation Review Team, and I would encourage i 8 the company as well as the staff to work as closely as 9 possible with the state of Ohio to try and address those 10 concerns, resolve the concerns that the state has and bring 11 about continued improvement in the emergency planning 12 situation for Davis Besse.
13 Those would be the comments that I would make.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Do my other 15 fellow commissioners have any comments they'd like to make?
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I don't have any extensive 17 comments, Mr. Chairman. I did want also, though, to second l
18 your endorsement and also Commissioner Asselstine's of the job ,
19 that Admiral Williams has done here. There's been an example 20 set here and I think a new standard for getting a plant out of 21 trouble.
22 I hope and I trust that we'll also see an example 23 set now for how to keep a plant out of trouble and live up to 24 the h,igh standard that has been set here. A lot of other 25 operations would do well to look at what's happened there at
. ~ z
, - ._ I. _ - _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ , ___ _ , . _ , - . . . , _ _ , , _ _ . . _ . . , _ _ _ .
. t
, 62 1 Davis Besse, in my judgment, even plants that haven't had any 2 significant troubles yet.
3 And beyond that, I also want to point out that upper 4 level management has had the good sense to stick with it, to 5 make the commitment and hang in there. I don't doubt that 6 that hasn't always been an easy commitment to make, and I 7 suspect there have been contrary pressures many times, but I'm 8 convinced and I hope we see demonstrated that you're going to 9 see it was all worthwhile.
10 That would be my only comment, Mr. Chairman, and I 11 hope that we see a successful startup program here.
12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Other 13 comments?
14 [No response.)
15 Are we ready to vote? All right. All Commissioners 16 in favor of authorizing the staff, after it makes the final 17 appropriate findings and determinations, to allow Davis Besse 18 to restart and proceed to full power, please signify by saying 19 aye.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Aye.
21 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Aye.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Aye.
23 COMMISSIONER CARR: Aye.
24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Aye.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Those opposed?
j
9
. 63 1 (No response.]
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The vote is 5 to O to allow the 3 restart after the staff is satisfied. The meeting is 4 adjourned.
5 [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the commission meeting 6 was adjourned. ]
7 8
9 10 i
11 t
12
.. 13
(.
14 15 .
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
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 Davis Besse Restart (Public Meeting) 8 PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MIETING: Friday, November 21, 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 stenogr.aphically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17 j is .4 _ 6ted__ _ _ _. ____ ________
uzanne /B. Y ng i 19 l 20 21
- I 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
23 24 25
Summary of Major Changes a New organization structure approved. Staffing increased from 690 to 1029 m Manning status 644 on July 1,1985 890 on November 17,1986 m Salaries made competitive. 60% of increase on ;
January 1,1986; 40% on January 1,1987 based on performance a Random drug screening program instituted for all site personnel 423 Toledo Edison employees tested 4 positive /4 terminations 1974 contractors tested 54 positive / site access refused a All Nuclear personnel moved to the site l
Nuclear Mission Staffing
- Approved
- 1029 1100-1050-1000-950- - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
869 l 930byyear-end 900- l 834 834 l 850- 802 .
I 797 q I l 779 $- 4 a
)
800- 769 s' / !
754
/y )
vt '
l 750- 706 -t -
., l 679 1 e } *s. g
j i
l i
74 g 666 g f .
} ::*
656
~
b d
^
"A N I
650-F 7G N N L
]t u
Y
- l 600- [,) [ h [$ $
M '
l L i{ d2 I$ " -
1 June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec l Jan Feb Mar Aptd May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec l Jan Feb Mar April May June July 1985 1986 1987 i
j
,,3.., ..
- - - Nuclear Engineering Group Approved: 207 220 -
4 210 -
I 200 -
l 190 -
180 -
l 170 -
160 - 155 15 , -
150 - 146 ,
134 '
140 - ;
j 125 130 -
334 y 1
113
+
120 -
m l'
107
~
i 104 , [ ' f. ','.
h
~
100 - 9h , g '.
y %-
]f $ *
,M Nov Dec l Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec l Jan feb Mar Apnl May June July Aug Sept 1985 1986 1987 1
Summary of Major Changes (Cont'd) m Plant organizational changes New Plant Manager New Assistant Plant Manager, Maintenance Assistant Plant Manager, Operations promoted from within New Genemi Superintendent, Outage and Program Management a Engineering organizational changes New Engineering General Director New Systems Engineering Director and Department New Nuclear Engineering Department u independent Safety Engineering Department established o
~
l Summary of Major Changes (Cont'd) m New Quality Assurance Director and reorganized department l 8 Restructured Company Nuclear Review Board 7 TED Members !
5 Extemal Members 1 m New Information Management Division i a New Document Control organization in place encompasses Station and Design Engineering a New Materials Manager and expanded materials management organization onsite.
m Planned transition from Senior Vice President to Vice President 4
, - - - - - - - , - - _ . _ . m. .- . _,- __- ._,.- , , .__,, ._ _ ,-.___-, . - _ _ .,__ , ,,, ., ,,.,__. ,
Summary of Major Changes Maintenance a Organization and Staffing 3 distinct disciplines each headed by Superintendent Supervisor to craft ratios were 1:23 now are 1:10 Mechanical 1:7 1 & C 1:6 Electrical a Training Training Foreman position established Training shift concept adopted Training Councils formed
- Administrative and Technic'ai Procedures Departmental duties and responsibilities outlined in new " Conduct of Maintenance" procedure 59% complete with 8 of 13 administrative and 582 of 986 technical procedures written All Maintenance procedures required for restart are approved andin place
Summary of Major Changes !
(Cont'd? I a Spare Parts and Material Control Six full time spare parts experts now in Materials ;
Management Validation of equipment information by Configuration Management Materials Staging Warehouse established u Engineering interface and Support Systems Engineering Department established Engineering resolution to Maintenance problems now formalized by Request For Engineering
- Assistance procedure a Plant Cleanliness and Material Readiness inspection criteria and checklists implemented inspection schedule generation and approval is j proceduralized l All accessible plant areas inspected monthly and l results reported j u Planning and Scheduling Program l
All activities now planned and scheduled by centralized Planning and Scheduling group l
l r
l l
Summary of Major Changes
(' Cont'd)
= Facilities Five story,100,000 sq. ft. shop and office complex will be occupied in December a Acceptable evaluation by NRC Maintenance Survey Team u Measurable improvement according to INPO u Future Activities Continue fine-tuning changes already completed Establish craft levels in each discipline using historicalworkload House Systems Engineering in the PSF Increase Maintenance interface in Configuration l Management and Spare Parts programs increase first line supervisor field time to-60%
( Continue upgrade of PM program l
l
. 1 l
Work Completed For Restart l Item Total To Complete Mode 5 4 3 2 1 Procedures 667 1 2 0 5 0 Facility Change Requests 276 2 1 1 6 1 Raychem Fixes 613 - - - - -
MOVATS 165 0 0 3 0 0 Nonconformance Reports 276 - - - - -
PCAQs 182 8 2 0 0 4 Licensing Commitments 440 6 14 44 0 0 l
l l
i
MWO Restart Status 5 4 3 2 Total Field Work -
Paper Closure Awaiting TP, ST Total
1 Restart Test Status 5 4 3 2 1 TPs STs Total l
l
MWOs/MWRs After Restart Adjustments (Packing, Torque) 146 Install / Rework / Replace 1702 Hangers (includes Removal Abandon HGRs) 233 Valves / Pumps / Spares 188 Paint 127 Sanitary / Drains 52 Tags / Pipe Caps / Locks Bolts 414 Modifications 259 Insulation 48 Bootseals/ Core Drill 141 Doors, Latches, Temporary Facilities 240 Generic (Test, Check, inspections, Verify Clean, Maintain, Vibrations Readings 164 Troubleshoot (Alarms, Wiring, Drawings) 89 Calibrate (Test Equipment, Gauges, SecondaryInstrumentation) 99 Fabricate (Ksys, Drip Pans, l.D. Tags, Labels 33 Remove (Scaffold, Tubing, Spare) 60 TOTAL 2293 Note: Primary Plant Related 505 Balance of Plant Related 1788
~~
Equipment investigation Summary
Purpose:
Determine root cause of equipment malfunctions to implement appropriate and effective corrective actions.
Scope: 13 Areasimpacting 7 systems Main Feedpump Turbine SFRCS Auxiliary Feedpump Turbines Auxiliary Feedpump Turbine Trip &
Throttle Valves Auxiliary Feedpump Valves AF599 & 608 Pilot Operated Relief Valve Main Steam Headers Main Feedwater Sturtup Control Valve Auxiliary Feedwater Pump #1 Suction ,
Supply Main Steam Valve MS-106 Nuclear Instrumentation Neutron Source Range Detectors Turbine Bypass Valve Safety Parameter Display System
Equipment Investigation Summary (Cont'd)
Restart Corrective Actions:
15 Design Modifications All field work complete Testing remains on Auxiliary Feed Water System and Main Feedpump Turbines 13 Maintenance / replacement activities All complete 5 Procedural and/ortraining issues 3 complete 2 remaining items are to train operators with full steam pressure on Auxiliary Feedpump turbine trip throttle valves and test PORV in Mode 3 i
I l
1 4
v-, ,. - -- . - , ._-, ,,.,,-- - .- _,,_,-..-.,_...-.,,.._,,--,-.,,_-,..,_,__,__._.__,,__.m. _ ,, _ __--_ _- - , ----_
Main Feedpump Turbines (MFPri a New control system, GE MDT-20, installed on both turbines in 1984 refueling outage.
8 April 24,1985-MFPT 1-1 tripped after reactor trip.
Cause was never positively identified.
8 June 2,1985-MFPT 1-1 and 1-2 tripped after reactor trip. Most probable cause identified as high discharge pressure trip due to incorrect setting of Rapid Feedwater Reduction target speed.
m June 9,1985-MFPT 1-1 tripped and initiated event.
~ Overspeed trip was caused by failed speed reference circuit board.
l 1
l Main Feedpump Turbines (MFPTJ Since June 9,1985:
e identified and corrected root cause of the 6-9-85 MFFT 1-1 trip. (Failed speed reference circuit board.)
e identified and implemented several modifications to the control circuits and hydraulics to improve performance.
s Started testing on low pressure steam and experienced some spurious trips on MFPT 1-1.
m Designed and implemented additional modifications including instrumentation package to pinpoint any future problems. Subsequent testing has been succaaaful. .
m Will continue testing and monitoring through l startup and beyond.
l
System Review and Test Program a Review of 34 Systems .
350 items for resolution:
153 prior to restart 149 complete 4 to complete, allin Mode 5 200 post restart a Test Program Corrective Mode Action Tests STs 5 109/9* 108/38 4 1/1 9/9 3 10/10 9/9 2 0 4/4 1 3/3 11 /11 4
Total 123/23 141/71
, *7 of the Mode 5 Corrective Action tests have portions that will be completed in Mode 3. Only 99 tests will close out in Mode 5.
l l
l .. -- ____ _ _
Examples ofimportant Problems Found During System Review and Test Program u lnadequate ventilation for service water pumps and motors
= inoperable Control Room Emergency Ventilation System a improperly wired containment air cooler fan and less than design capacity a lmproper wire wrap technique in Steam Feedwater Rupture Control System equipment cabinets m inadequate performance testing requirements for safsty related heat exchangers and pumps minadequate testing of MSIV and AVV l u Lack of configuration control in Safety Features
{
Actuation System l
l
h Davis-Besse Design Transition a Goals Assume design engineering control Perform design engineering on site a Required Tasks Establish design basis
! Provide adequate staffing 4 Provide training Transferdesign documents a Activities Underway Development of:
{ Design criteria System descriptions Draft design transfer plan CAD workstation installed Vendor drawing and technical manual inventory and review Transfer of 550 design specifications and 17,000 design document mylars a Future Activities (1987-88)
Develop and implement detailed Design Transfer Plan Transfer remainder of documentation and calculations Develop detailed Q-componentlist Perform technical review to establish acceptability of TED control and maintenance of design documents l
l t
~- - - -
Remaining Documentation for Tumover item Amount Closed FCRs 2,100 Open FCRs 1,300 Field Change Notices 38,000 Core Drill / Cutout Reports 2,000 Drawing Change Notices 13,000 Vendor Drawing Change Notices 3,500 Supplier Documents 34,000 Calculations 5,000 Studies 20,000 pages Computerized Schedules and Indices 51 Miscellaneous Files and Archives 412 boxes l
l
- - - - - ~ -
l Decay Heat Removal Capability e Adequate feed and bleed cooling capability through use of makeup pumps and PORV presently exists a Enhancements to this capability previously discussed to be through installation of primary side depressurization capability a Significant analytical efforts completed on this capability demonstrate lack of viability of this option Too much RCSinventoryloss Sensitivity of plant response a Efforts to reassess attematives completed a Enhancements to be accomplished through next refueling outage I
Davis-Besse Feed and Bleed Cooling Capability Options Considered:
a Emergency Depressurization to HPI Setpoint Blowdown through hotlegs Blowdown through Reactor Vessel head Blowdown through Pressurizer .
m Augmentation of injection Capability Replacement of low head HPI pumps with high head pumps Addition of an independent HPI pump Increase make up system capacity l
l I
w-r- ------- r--- --m-,,.r --m.- -------y,--wea==r -
w-rw rwewww---- ' --r--- - = - , - ----aw-r -yw--wme- --+ - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - -w ytww--'rW-- *---www?'--
B&W Owners Group Safety and Performance improvement Program a Objective Reduce the number of trips and transients on B&W Owners Group plants and ensure acceptable plant response during those trips and transients which do occur ,
a Goals By the end of 1990 the average per plant trip frequency will be less than two per year By the end of1990 the number of severe transients will be reduced to 0.1 per plant per year based on a moving three yeare/erage a Total of ~ 500 recommendations expected I a 95 recommendations generated and submitted for plant evaluation a Current Status Davis- BWOG Besse Average Numberof recommendations under evaluation 57 60 Numberof recommendations awaiting implementation 11 12 Number of recommendations closed 27 23 l
l l -- . _ ._ _ __
Emergent issues a System Review
= Motor Operated Valves a Pipe Supports u Environmental Qualification a Raychem a Fire Protection a Wire Wrap Terminations a Reactor Coolant Pump Shafts a lBEW Strike a Emergency Planning a Emergency Evacuation Review Team d
, . - . . . - _ _ , _ _ , _-_,.,-.__-,,,,.._-..m.__ ,,, . _,-_. ,, , . _ _ , . , _ . . .
.g - + - .. .
p Motor-operated Valve Improvement Program a 165 MOVs identified as iniportant to the safe operation of Davis-Besse
~
m Extensive inspection of MOVs--complete
. , Stem Lubrication Wiring Packing EQ check T-drains
! De-energize heaters
~n MOVATS Test (NoAP) of MOVs complete s Torque Switch Settings 165 MOVs complete -
Vendor verification that settings will not damage valves ,
, a Design AP calcs for MOVs--complete
= Full in-house capability to perform all MOVATS-l related activities
(, a Confirmatory Functional Tests of Selected MOVs Opening Against Static DesignAP 20 MOVs selected--complete Closing Against Flow'and DesignAP
~
8 NOVs selected 5 complete
, 3 tests due in Mode 3 L
l
- l- ...--- . ..-.. : _.-.... - .
Status of Davis-Besse Accreditation Schedule for Submission of Self- Actual INPO Evaluation Submission On-site Program Reports Dates Evaluation Non-licensed operator 12/85 12/85 6/86 Licensed Operator Candidate 12/85 12/85 6/86 Senior ReactorOperator 12/85 12/85 6/86 Mechanical Maintenance 9/86 5/86 6/86 Electrical Maintenance 9/86 5/86 6/86 Instrumentation and Control Maintenance 9/86 5/86 6/86
- Chemistry and Health Physics 12/86 9/86 8/87 "
Shift Technical Advisor 12/86 10/86 8/87 "
TechnicalStaff and Managers 12/86 11/8 6 8/87 "
- Submitted as one program
" Tentative i
Major Recovery / Outage Activities Estimated Costs (In thousands)
Activity 1985 1986 Total 34 System Review and Test Program 16,800 22,500 39,300 13 Areas Equipment investigation 7,200 6,200 13,400 Fire Protection 6,335 8,900 15,235 Piping Supports 4,560 10,200 14,760 Configuration Management 1,200 7,300 8,500 Procedures 800 5,525 6,325 '
Environmental Qualification 1,080 4,150 5,230 Raychem -
6,675 6,675 Reactor Coolant Pumps - 14,500 14,500
i -
I Major Recovery / Outage Activities (Cont'd)
Estimated Costs (In thousands)
Activity 1985 1986 Total S S $
INPO Training Accreditation 3,360 4,040 8,200 EPZ Upgrade - 2,800 2,800 Other Recovery /
Outage items:
Fuel Oil / Power 950 1,650 2,600 Plant Clean-Up 1,300 1,200 2,500 Recruiting 350 650 1,000 Incremental Outage Support Costs: 2,431 24,589 27,020 Total 46,366 120,879 167,245
,,-.-_,__--...y 9_ . , , , _,,_ ,..y.. g , , , _ .,,., ,,,,_,w,.,,
Davis-Besse Post Restart Commitments- 1987 (000)
Construct Radwaste Facility 6 2,300*
Construct Training Simulator 8,500*
Hanger Reinspection / Modifications 4,300*
Review Control Room Design 1,000*
Provide Fire Protection Modifications to Meet Appendix R 8,700*
AFW and DHR Modifications 9,800*
Improve inverter Reliability 1,000*
Perform 34 Systems Review Modifications 5,400 Emergency Planning 1,000 Ten (10)Yearin-Serviceinspection 3,400*
Upgrade CommitmentTracking System 1,200 Configuration Management 16,000*
Close Outimplemented FCRs 2,000*
Corrective Maintenance MWO backlog 2,000 Restore Start-Up Feed Pump 800*
Complete Procedure Preparation 6,000*
Miscellaneous 16,900 Total $90,300
- Funding after1987
i.
3 t
i i
License Examination i Summary 100 100 100 100 100 100 - == = 95.4 972
= I
== 92 0
==
== 93.9 EEE 91 6 EEE y _ 900 EEE 91.7 91.7 89 6
== '
90 - = = "" ==
- == == 88 8 EEE EEE EEE *: 88 2 ==
K9 EEE EEE EEE EEE =
j
.6
EEE q
EEE EEE EEE EEE 78 3 EEE EEE EEE 80 - s
- Es -
EEE EEE EEE EEE E E E3 EEE I" C) EsE EEE '
EEE I; EEE- 73 3
==
., , EEE '
EEE EEE
== @
mG 70 - EEE
=
EEE
=
f J<
q -Z
= s EEE
=
==
EEE
=
+
-i
==
sEE
=
=
EEE 66.7
= .
ggE; j
EEE .,
~
C m m 9 m se m as =
EEE -
=
m
=
sa m
== -
S 60 - EEE sEE EEE F:- EEE EEE EEE e m EEE EEE o
L. 50 -
=
EEE ss
=
EEE u
m a
=
EEE e
r sa
=
EEE s
=
EEs ss
=
a sa
= .
m
=
EEE m
=
m .'
EEE Ef EEE=t e EEE EEs v:j EEE A@ sEE EEE EEE EEE EEE EEE
- a. 40 _-
es
=
se
==
u; Es
==
~ sa
=
a
=
sa 2525 m .) EEE m
EEE as EEE as .
=
m -
=
m
=
se b- y
=
m p
,$ =
ss
=
as
=
sa
=
==
==
=
==
==
=
=
m m as -
= es g 30 - EEE EEE y EEE y EEs EEE EEs ,
a _ ss as N as e as e as EEE ss EEE as EEE a
EEE t as s5 E3 EE N u
! E D 20 -
=_
=
m
==
e
- g. ,
a
==
y a as
== y a
== y as
==
EEE as -
EE:
es EE sE E
me
= .e = = .. == ! == =
=
ess 10 - = ss s se #e es sa == == = =_=
_ ss == s =E - 33 1 =_ -
as sa sg ,
as
=s a
Es se
=s ,-
i 0 - 33 E5E EE E EEE EEE ** **
22/24 7/7 18/18 4/4 23/25 9/10 21/22 11/15 18/23 5/5 31/33 11/12 22/24 8/9 26/29 10/15 30/34 4/4 35I36 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Year
==
== Initial Exams s Requalification Exams EE TotalInitialExams }~ Total Requalification Exams
== 91/105 = 87% 224/244 = 91.8%
Controlling Procedure for Power Escalation Testing PP1102.05 Features of Proceduralized Plant Startup a Prerequisites
- 1. Approvals Required To Begin Restart 3
Company Nuclear Review Board (CNRB) with concurrence from the Senior Vice President, Nuclear Station Review Board (SRB)
Joint Test Group (JTG)
Nuclear Group Directors Operations Superintendent t Operations Training Manager Licensing Manager C & HP General Superintendent Quality Assurance Director Technical Support Manager Nuclear Regulatory Commission Plant Manager l
l l
l l
+
l l
l Controlling Procedure (Cont'd) j
- 2. Operational Readiness Licensed operator requalification training complete Simulator training complete All modification and procedure change training complete '
Maximum annunciator availability Restart test program complete and acceptable through Mode 3 l
l l
I--- - - -- -
Controlling Procedure (Cont'd) l
- Mode Transition and Power Escalation
- 1. Control Room Staffing Augmented:
Normal Shift of Operators One additional Senior Reactor Operator (SRO)
One additional Reactor Operator (RO)
One additional Equipment Operator (EO) per zone Operations Management Reactor Performance Engineering Group
- 2. Plant evolution briefings and walk throughs
- 3. " Pull and wait" criticality approach
- 4. Management Hold and Review Points Mode 1 transition 40 %
75 %
90 %
Any operating abnormalities which require further review f
e-e ~- ,e , a-,,--n-,,,,,- - ,--,----,-w ---,,------,--,,---,-.,,,--,-,,--,,,,,-,---v-.v -
G l
Controlling Procedure (Cont'd) l u Tests Conducted i SFRCS ICS Aux Feedwater/ Pumps i Control Rod Drive System Reactor Coolant Pumps Main Steam isolation Valves Atmospheric Vent Valves Core Flood and Decay Heat Valves High Pressureinjection Pressurized Heatem and PORV Makeup Pumps Post-Accident Sampling System
! Full PowerTurbine Trip l
l l
4.
Davis-Besse Restart Schedule NOVEMBER 1986 DECEMBER 1986 16 23 l 30 7 l 14 l 21 l 28 2 l S l l 11/24 MODE 4 CHECKLIST COMPLETE 11/25 PLANT MANAGER AUTHORIZES MODE CHANGE, ENTER MODE 4 l
11/26 MODE 3 CHECKLIST COMPLETE 11/26 PLANT MANAGER AUTHORIZES MODE CHANGE, ENTER MODE 3 i 1250 COMPLETE MODE 3 TPs 1 12H3 RCS FULLTEMPERATURE/ PRESSURE l
12M4 ADMIT STFAM TO TURBINE 12M4 COMPLETE MODE 2 CHECKLIST i
12n6 PLANT MANAGER AUTHORIZES MODE CHANGE, ENTER MODE 2
- 12/17 PLACE MFPTIN SERVICE,2% POWER 12n7 MODE 1 CHECKLIST COMPLETE 12M8 PLANT MANAGER AUTHORIZES MODE CHANGE, ENTER MODE 1 j
12n9 PERFORM MAIN TURSINE OVER SPEED TRIP TEST 12n9-12/29 PERFORM ICS TUNING 12/21 SYNCHRONIZE TURBINE-GENERATOR,15% POWER 12/26 REACTOR TRIP TEST,92%
12/29 COMMENCE POWER ASCENSION TO 100%
i
~
-. - - , - - - - - - - .-. u - , .-
e 4
0 4
eeoseooo Ip pl 94G.9Oee C
O
- D n
M i l
.5 C jl 1 ,
y
_ J
'y N L tg E 11.
O la g C I'E I
- 3 O
1 in g
.h If s
u 31 .
i-e WE 2o ........
j 7 y fl i ~= $3, I Z , liv -
3"- $
Lf3 L!"
a I
- b
- =1-d n
l l
, !i at 1
~
I
i 2.
I I
- 4 mi t..
4 P,esid.. .
j Nuclear I
i, 2
i i
i t
i i
1 l
1 : nas sem - : Co er m ien j Spesial Programs: Pe ne Nuclear.
e ,Health Me.a.e, :. um.rson.ra.l
.. iia,n,re.
age.
., ment
. : s, m.
inlen.namen s.t oi,e ti ages :
1 I
i I l 1 I
i.
g I
1 i
i Exvironmental Emergency Computer Document Centrol Davis Besse Compliance Pro stedness lad w eld SWWy leuclear Roseeds Manager Stanager hf88"' :. Systems Manager Systems glanager Manager anager .
4 i
y Changela function er
- Ilow seganlaattomalentity
! V reporttag responsibilHy l*
+
i l t
l 1
l I _
e # 4 0
19 I!
I ,i bb jg ~
L h p ,
w__
1 1!
f;=
lI
- L, .
g l
1 i
lI i l
l 1
. .i. . . .
>5 i= 3 p'
I.N
!.D
- . ,, . . . . . - ,- - , - ,- . - . ,,. , - - - - , , , , . . - _ . , - _.w.. . ..,-_,,,,,,e-n ,,-,,_,-,__,,,,,,,,_,,_,-,e
- _ , , , , , , ,,w.n,,.
i 4 e I
! Plant Maintenance .
i, Assistant Plant i
Manager 4 Ma6ntenance l I
)
- Maintenance : Maintenance Maentenance :
Superintendent : Superintendent ; -_ __;; -
i I&C :. Mechanical
. Electrical :.
! I 1
i i
Lead Mechanical General Foreman Station Services Lead Electrical General Foreman
, LeadI & C General Foreman I p 8* **
Engineer I&C Engineer Mechanical General Foreman Engineer Electncal l
,I : :. :. :.
- Training Foreman! - Training Foseman: - Training Foreman: - Training Foreman:
I i
J i
Engineer Foremen Engineer Foremen Foremen Engineer Foremen I
i l
l 1
j Maintenance Maintenance Craft Cralt Craft Craft Specialist Specialist Specialist i
i l
Change in function or
- New organizationalentity j reporting responsibility :.
D%
t I
a o i
j 1
- Plant Manager i
i 1
1 Assistant Plant Assistant Plant l Manager Manager l Maintenance Operations I
j Chemistry and I
General Health Physics Superintendent l
- Generai Outage & Program:
Superintendent Management :
l E
i Technical Support Plant Services
- Manager Manager l
l 1
4 i sy Changein function or lNew organizationalentity i V reportingresponsibility 1
A t.
9 1
i i
1 l
' Ouality Assurance j Director i
- I
! l Gaat Engineering perations Quality
- Vertfic Assurance Assurance Manager Manager Manager i I Qua'i Quail Engineering Engineering Cde inspectica Quality Control Quality Systems Vender Quality j Verifica on Verific on Assurance Assurance Supervisor Supervisor Superviser Supervisor j
Separvisor Supervisor Superviser Supervise, j
i
] g f-Changela function er
- New organizational entity F reporting responsibility 4
l
'l i
i l
i i
- s l
I i
I Nuclear Projects l
- i. Director q.
l l
\
i t
f I I I I Materials j Facili4 Modification Contracts and Budget Lead Projects Manager .
Manager Manager Manager l
i j
4 s
?
l I
Nuclear Materials
! Manager l
i j NuclearSpare Parts Nuclear Pmiects Nuclear Materials Nuclear Material NuclearMaterial j Supervisor Administrator Supervisor ControlSupervisor Coordinator (Lead) l 1 .
Spare Parts Nuclear Contract Nuclear Material Foreman Nuclear Evaluator (3) Administrator Specialist (6) Material Coort!inator (2) i Storekeeper Material Nuclear Material '
Specialist Coordinator MaterialHandler(6) l l l
MWWitWik MVfWrGtitttWilftWstWGMgt gVEV;tW(!W;t((>;t g(gyggggggg.g;g ,
N v Document Contr61* Desk, 016 Phillips TRANSMITTAL TO:
. I
_e >
ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room 3E DATE: // 2. I N
3 FROM:
/
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch 3 ":
3:
3: Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting 3:
3 l, document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and j ,l l placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or a required.
m :l
- 1 .
o n bt$ 3e 55d-j Meeting
Title:
h cw%e T o W N C. Doke f
3 i
MedarY Meeting Date: h h h(, Open Y Closed 5 !: '(
3 ;
3 -
3 :
3 Copies 3 :l Item Description *: DCS Advanced *8 3: to PDR Cg Si 3 :
3 :
1 1 3! 1. TRANSCRIPT 2 : ,
3!' W V (d " >M oh5 a i
]l 3
3 ::
h 2.
3:*
2 3
3 ": 3.
m[
m:
3::'
4.
3 3) 43 .:
gi S.
3:
3 3 :l; 3 -
" 6 3 ,
3 3:
3:
b
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
33 C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY
$j papars.
3 !
3 a hk Yhh Ilh Yl Yk bYbl ihbYl lh
. _ _ .