ML20055D096
| ML20055D096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1990 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055D095 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007030205 | |
| Download: ML20055D096 (89) | |
Text
.
]
9 DRlggjg' r O .
9 OF PROCIEDDfGS ;
i i i l
I i
4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CODE (ISSION j Sec50T&I
! In the Matter oft )
l )
SEABROOK STATION: )
OPEN HEARING )
)
Pages: 1 through 75 Place: King of Prussia, Pennsylvania Date: June 19, 1990 !
l i
1 1
i O ,
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION 1 oskw A,mm !
1229 L Street, N.W., Suke 600
- com 30;u , x,o. : WasMagton, D.C. 20006 F'Dn p (,99 , ,;
-~
F D t.' l i
1 !
'3 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'Se(s,sT&I In the Matter oft )
)
SEABROOK STATION: )
)
OPEN HEARING )
) ,
Adam's Room Valley Force Hilton .
251 West Dekalb Pike King of Prussia, Pennsylvania '
Tuesday, June 19, 1990 ,
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing,
'O q_j pursuant to notice, at 1 00 p.m.
APPEARANCES:
On Behalf of the Nuclear Reculation Commission:
TIM MARTIN, Regional Administrator JON JO!!NSON, Branch Chief, Region I BILL KANE, Director, Division of Reactor Projects, Region-I .
BRUCE BOGER, Assistant Director, Region I Reactors ;
DICK WESSMAN, Project Director, NRR I EBE MCCABE, Project Section Chief for Seabrook, Region I .
NOEL DUDLEY, Senior Resident Inspector l l
J l
l l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
i
2 APPEARANCES (Continued)
Qa_kehalf of the New Hampshire Yankee Groupt EDWARD A. BROWN, President and CEO TED C. FEIGENBAUM, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer GARY KLINE, Power Ascension Test Program Manager BRUCE DRAWBRIDGE, Executive Director, Nuclear Production EDWARD DESMARIS, Independent-Review Team Manager TERRY HARPSTER, Director of Licensing Services JAMES PESCHEL, Regulatory Compliance Manager A i O
e 1
1
-I l
i I
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
c.
3
(%)'} 1 PROCEEDINGS ,
2 MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon.
3 The purpose of this meeting is for New Hampshire 4 Yankee, Division of Public Service Company of New Hampshire 5 to brief the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on their ,
6 assessment of the status and results of Power Ascension Test 7 Program at Seabrook, Unit 1, to date. The plan is basically 8 at the 50 percent power plateau level.
9 This meeting is being transcribed. It's an open 10 public meeting, and the minutes will be available following 11 the transcription.
l 12 I would like to introduce the people at the 13 meeting. I'm Jon Johnson, Projects Branch Chief, Region I.
() 14 MR. MARTIN: Tim Martin, Regional Administrator.
15 MR. KANE: I'm Bill Kane, Director, Division of 16 Reactor Projects in Region I.
17 MR. BOGER: Bruce Boger, Assistant Director for 18 Region I ruactors at Headquarters. I 19 MR. WESSMAN: Dick Wessman, Projects Director from '
20 NRR, Headquarters.
21 MR. MCCABE: Ebe McCabe, Region 1, Project Section 22 Chief for Seabrook.
23 MR. DUDLEY: Noel Dudley, Senior Resident 24 Inspector, Seabrook.
25 MR. BROWN: Ed Brown, President and CEO of New A.-)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
4 1 Hampshire Yankee.
{')/
R.
2 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Ted Feigenbaum, Senior Vice 3 President and Chief Operating Officer, New Hampshire Yankee.
4 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: Bruce Drawbridge. I'm Executive 5 Director of Nuclear Production at New Hampshire Yankee.
6 MR. KLINE: Gary Kline, Power Ascension Test 7 Program Manager.
8 MR. DESMARIS: Ed Desmaris, Independent QT 9 Manager.
10 MR. KARPSTER: Terry Harpster, Director of 11 Licensing Services.
12 MR. PESCHEL: Jim Peschel, Regulatory Compliance 13 Manager.
r'
! 14 MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Brown, we would like to turn the 15 meeting over to you.
16 MR. BROWN: Thank you and good afternoon.
17 My name is Edward Brown and I am President and 18 Chief Executive Officer of New Hampshire Yankee.
19 New Hampshire Yankee is the managing agent for the 20 12 joint-owner utility companies that own Seabrook Station.
21 I report directly to the Executive Committee of the Seabrook 22 Station joint owners for matters relating to budget, finance 23 and policy. For license-related matters, I report to the i
24 Chief Executive Officer of our lead owner, Public Service 25 Company of New Hampshire. '
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
5 1 In addition to my position at New Hampshire
(]
+ wJ 2 Yankee, I am Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Yankee 3 Atomic Electric Company.
4 On behalf of New Hampshire Yankee and our joint 5 owners, I'd like to thank you, the NRC, for this opportunity 6 to brief you on Seabrook Station's Power Ascension Test 7 Program. Joining me at this table today are members of our 8 New Hampshire Yankee team: Ted Feigenbaum, Senior Vice 9 President and Chief Operating Officer; Bruce Drawbridge, 10 Executive Director of Nuclear Production / Gary Kline, who is 11 the Power Ascension Test Program Manager; and Ed Desmaris, 12 who is the manager of our independent review team.
13 I'll be turning this briefing over to Ted n
() 14 Feigenbaum in a moment, but first I'd like to assure you 15 that the testing program is and will continue to be 16 conducted safely and conservatively.
17 We've, encountered some equipment problems that 18 have delayed testing and have stretched out the schedule, 19 but I am encouraged by the way we've dealt with them. It 20 proves to me that the operating philosophy of safety, 21 professionalism, quality and excellence is fully understood 22 by our staff and is being practiced in all of our operating 23 activities.
24 We've learned and applied valuable lessons as a 25 result of our self-evaluations following the June 22, 1989 V
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 1
l 6 ,
r's 1 natural circulation test. Some were specific to the Power U 2 Ascension Test Program such as better pre-test briefings, 3 designated teams for a more complex test, and increased use l 4 of the simulator for training. Others in the area of post-5 event management, management oversight and procedural ;
6 compliance have broad effects on the overall operation. And 7 I believe we are now receiving tangible observable benefits i 8 from these lessons learned.
9 The test program is demonstration that the plant 10 is well designed and well constructed, and that the people 11 operating it are well trained and capable. We've been 12 working very hard to establish a philosophy and an attitude 13 at Seabrook in which safe plant operation is achieved ,
A q_) 14 through open and honest communications, teamwork and 15 accountability. ,
16 We recognize that we must continue to discover 17 ways to improve,our operation, whether it be in procedures, 18 maintenance, design or training. We also recognize that the
- 19 nurturing of this attitude requires constant active 20 management involvement, and I know that following my 21 retirement in October of this year, Ted Feigenbaum will 22 continue to stress this philosophy.
23 We' re prepared to complete the remainder of our 24 Power Ascension Test Program in a conservative manner.
25 After satisfactory completion of the Power Ascension Test
^T 1 (O Reporting Corporation Heritage (202) 628-4888
7 1 Program, we will be entering into full power operations this 2 summer and continue to operate the plant safely and 3 conservatively.
4 At this point I'd like to turn the meeting over to 5 Ted Feigenbaum.
6 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Thank you, Ed.
7 Good afternoon. My name is Ted Feigenbaum and I 8 am the Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of 9 New Hampshire Yankee, Seabrook Station.
10 The New Hampshire Yankee team is pleased to be 11 here today to brief you on Seabrook Station's Power 12 Ascension Test Program. Following me as the speaker will be 13 Gary Kline, our Power Ascension Test Program Manager, who
() 14 will describe his test organization, talk about the testing 15 program to date, and our plans for the remainder of the 16 program. He will also describe the results of the major 17 tests already completed such as the turbine start up test, e
18 the turbine torsional test, the load swing tests and the 19 shutdown from outside control room that was just recently 20 completed this past weekend.
21 Then Bruce Drawbridge, our Executive Director of 22 Nuclear Production, will discuss some of the challenges that 23 have come up during the testing program and how we've 24 addressed them and he'll also update you on the status of 25 our maintenance activities.
Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l-8 1 Ed Desmaris, the Manager of our Independent Review 2 Team, will then brief you on the status of the self-3 assessments we've conducted on the Power Ascension Test 4 Program. And as you know, this is a continuous process 5 throughout power ascension te=*ing, with formal 6 presentations made to senior management at the five, 30, 50, 7 75 and 100 percent power levels. We found this self- !
8 assessment to be a very helpful program and a number of good 9 recommendations have been made which we're currently acting 10 on.
11 As we begin our Power Ascension Test Program, we l
12 made a commitment that it would be conducted in a safe, 13 deliberate and conservative manner and would not be driven
() 14 by schedule concerns. And our actions bear out the fact 15 that our commitment has been kept and I can assure you we'll 16 continue to keep that commitment throughout the remainder of 17 the Power Ascension Test Program and too throughout e
18 Seabrook's operating life.
19 In my brief remarks, I would just like to 20 highlight some of the preparations that we made and the 21 programs we established over the past year to better prepare 22 ourselves for the conduct of the testing program after full 23 power operations. I'll give you my perception on how the 24 Power Ascension Test Program and our overall transition to 25 an operating organization is proceeding.
1
(:) Reporting Heritage Corporation (202) 628-4888
__~
l' 9
1 Now, as Ed mentioned, we've made good use of the 2 lessons learned from the June 22nd event. The other 3 speakers will discuss these in more detail, but I'll just 4 mention that because of our self-evaluations over the last 5 year, our test procedures have been significantly improved.
6 We've also successfully integrated our testing and operator 7 crews into a single cohesive organization, and we've 8 required more intensified training and increased our 9 emphasis on the use of the simulator for complex test 10 evolutions.
11 We've also improved our event evaluation methods 12 by cambining root cause analysis techniques with new human 13 performance evaluation systems. We call this our Event 14 E$aluation and Reduction Program, and we believe it's a very 15 valuable tool that helps us get to the root cause of 16 significant plant events and identify any human performance 17 factors that might have contributed to them.
18 We've also instituted and improved programs that 19 are designed to prevent problems before they arise in the 20 first place. And one such example of this is our trip 21 reduction program. One part of the program is the well 22 publicized awareness campaign that requires us to look 23 carefully at any plant activity that might lead to a reactor 24 trip.
25 Another aspect of the program is a review of the 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
10
~
l (T 1 secondary side design and operating characteristics. We L] l 2 know that many trips at newly operating plans are the result i
3 of problems with the secondary side. To avoid this, we 4 proactively formed a special group that conducted a thorough 5 review of our feedwater system prior to initiation of the 6 test program. They made a number of valuable I 1
7 recommendations which we've already implemented. l 8 We've also created a dedicated operating 9 experience review group which is responsible for 10 coordinating the evaluation of HRC information notices, 11 INPO, significant operating event reports, as well as 12 identifying and disseminating other industry information 13 thet may be of value of Seabrook Station.
() 14 Another very important aspect of our preparations 15 has been in the attitude, the morale and the focus of our 16 staff at the plant. We've been able to forge a cohesive, 17 integrated organization dedicated to supporting the test e
18 crews and enabling them to conduct the Power Ascension Test 19 Program in a safe and a deliberate manner. The level and 20 quality of the support towards our operations staff from the 21 various groups, including engineering and training, 22 maintenance and the quality groups has been outstanding.
23 We've also taken management action to ensure that potential -
24 distractions do not impact the testing program.
25 For example, we've put together a task team to
?
'a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
11
,r 'T 1 deal with the recent allegations and congressional inquiries
\-)
2 and have made sure their activities do not affect the 3 testing program.
4 And as I've mentioned to the NRC staff at other 5 meetings recently, Ed Brown has been the only individual 1 6' directly involved in matters relating to the Northeast 7 Utilities merger with PS&H. All other executive and senior 1
8 level management, including myself, have been dedicated to !
9 the plant Power Ascension Test Program and other plant 10 activities.
11 For the past eight months or so, Ed Brown and I 12 have been meeting each week with 10 randomly selected 13 members of our organization, contractors as well as
() 14 employees, from all levels and departments. I also talked 15 to many employees during tours of the station and I can tell
- 16 you that the morale and the attitude at New Hampshire Yankee 17 has never been better. Everyone is totally focused on 18 ensuring that power ascension and operation are conducted 19 safely and successfully.
20 We believe our programs and preparations have paid 21 direct dividends during the Power Ascension Test Program.
22 In fact, I believe that the manner in which we've conducted 23 the program is indicative of our transition to an 24 operational organization.
25 We've certainly encountered challenges along the
(~\
\~)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12
{')
v 1 way, but the combined operation and test crews have been 2 extremely well prepared to deal with them. From my point of 3 view, the way in which the station has handled and corrected 4 each problem that we face demonstrates the programs we have 5 put in place are effective and a conservative operational 6 philosophy is present.
7 In isolated instances where equipment or staff 8 performance was not satisfactory, testing was terminated.
9 The plant was placed in a stable condition. A thorough 10 evaluation of the problem was conducted, a root cause 11 determined, and the necessary corrective actions implemented 12 before testing continued.
13 After you hear our speakers relate some of the r
( 14 specifics of our testing program to date, and we answer your 15 questions, we'd be interested in hearing the NRC's views on 16 the progress we've made and our readiness to proceed with 17 full power operation. We look forward to addressing any 18 issues the NRC staff has identified so that we can continue 19 to improve our performance.
20 At this point I'd like to introduce Gary Kline, 21 our Power Ascension Test Program Manager, who will briefly 22 summarize our progress to date.
23 MR. KLINE: Thank you, Ted.
24 My name is Gary Kline and I'm the Power Ascension 25 Test Program Manager.
()
\~J l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1~
13 t
(~') 1 I will be describing the result of-our low power >
v 2 testing to date. The plant is presently at 3 percent power 3 and we are continuing our testing.
4 Our Power Ascension Test Organization is 5 integrated into our station organization using the use of 6 combined operating and test crews. The Power Ascension Test 7 Organization is depicted on this slide.
8 Reporting directly to me is the reactor 9 engineering department supervisor and the program support 10 manager. Reactor engineering department supervisor directs 11 the activities of the test crews and is responsible for the .
12 performance of the start-up tests. The program support 13 manager is responsible for our Power Ascension Test Program T'T
(_/ 14 procedures and for the training of combined operating and 15 test crews.
16 We utilized four test crews, each of which is !
17 headed by a shift test director, and the crews are composed-18 of individual test directors and test personnel required to 19 perform the designed tests.
20 In preparation for the Power Ascension Test 21 Program, we reviewed and revised --
22 MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry. Would you move the 23 microphone closer?
24 MA. KLINE: In preparation for the Power Ascension 25 Test Program, we reviewed and revised the program to rm b Corporation Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888
14 1 incorporate the lessons learned from our low powered (J)
L 2 testing. The major enhancements made were to rewrite the 3 program and all of the power ascension test procedures to 4 incorporate them into the existing station procedure system.
( 5 This revision was made to standardize the format, provide 6 consistency and application of guidance and to enhance the 7 human factor characteristics of the procedures.
8 Additionally, each procedure now has a background 9 document and a briefing document. The background document i
10 provides the purpose of the test, any special or acceptance 11 criteria, expected plant conditions, and criteria for 12 termination of the t6st. The briefing document provides the
, 13 basis for the pre-test briefing. Its use ensures that L fs l \) 14 approprie.te individuals on the test crews understand their 15 responsibilities during the test and also understand how to 16 exit the test in the event of equipment failure or other 17 problems.
i l 18 We have found these revised procedures, in l 19 particular, the briefing document and the background 20 document, to be very effective. After the turbine trip, l 21 which Bruce Drawbridge will discuss later, the test crew 22 properly exited the test program and restored the plant to a l
l 23 stable condition. We believe that our enhanced procedures 24 contributed to the performance of the combined test group.
i l- 25 We have made other revisions to the Power
(~
v) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
15
(~} 1 Ascension Test Program to incorporate lessons learned from
\_/ ;
2 the testing to date. As a result of the turbine trip, we 3 revised the review requirements and determination of 4 equipment readiness for testing.
5 The pre-test briefing portion of the program was 6 enhanced to limit the attendance of observers and thereby 7 promote better communication among the combined operating 8 and test crew. And we implemented a separate and distinct 9 power ascension test night order system to enhance backshift 10 and weekend communications, and augmented our post-test 11 results review process with quality assurance and additional 12 test personnel.
13 Another essential element of our program requires
( )- 14 that all of the operating and test personnel be trained on 15 each of the procedures. Training on a simulator is required 16 for the integrated tests that will produce a plant response.
17 Five procedures,have been designated to be performed by a 18 specific crew composed of operations and test personnel.
19 Prior to these tests, the combined crew receives special 20 classroom and simulator training. ST-33 shutdown from 21 outside the control room is one of the designated tests.
22 The crew received their final training last 23 Thursday and ST-33 was successfully performed this last 24 Saturday.
25 Before discussing the actual tests performed, I
("i V
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
._a
16 1 would like to discuss one aspect of our trip reduction
(~)T
\_
2 program that Ted touched on earlier. There are two main 3 parts to this valuable program. The first is adjustments to 4 the feedwater system and the second is an awareness 5 campaign. !
6 The feedwater system adjustments utilize 7 Westinghouse trip reduction experience and recommendations.
8 These changes include: revised controller settings for the I 9 steam generator water level controller, and feedwater flow l
10 controller for initial startup; revised reset time constants :
11 for the steam generator water level controllers; revised 12 control settings for the feedwater bypass valve controllers; j 13 and revised control settings for the feedpump speed set q
(_j 14 point controller.
15 Additional adjustments were made to the steam 16 generator feedpumps involving low section pressure trip and 17 speed controllers. The section pressure trips and speed 18 controllers were biased to enable one feedpump to stay on
- 19. line through a minor transient.
20 Specific work requests are stamped with the word 21 " trip avoidance". Repetitive tasks in plant maintenance 22 procedures are reviewed and identified as potential trips.
23 System engineers review every work request generated. They 24 review the work to be done and determine if the work could 25 potentially trip the plant. If the work could potentially f)/
Corporation Heritage Reporting [
(202) 628-4888
17 I trip the plant, then the work requeut is stamped " trip
(~/')
A_
2 avoidance".
3 We are reviewing on a system basis repetitive task 4 sheets and associated procedures for potential trips. These 5 repetitive task sheets are then entered into the work l 6 control data base so that they can also be stamped " trip 7 avoidance".
l 8 We have also instituted an awareness campaign-9 utilizing posters and making our trip avoidance goal known 10 to all site personnel. To date, we have not experienced a
'11 reactor trip. I believe that the trip reduction program has 12 had a substantial part in this achievement.
13 Thus far in our program we have completed all or L () 14 portions of 22 power ascension tests. The brackets indicate 15 the number of times those tests, such as the turbine-16 generator startup test will be performed during the test I
17 program. The actual performance of the tests, once the i 18 delays caused by the turbine problems are discounted, was 19 essentially in accordance with our test schedule and results j 20 are very much as expected. ]
21 I'll be discussing the results of four major I I
22 tests. I do have the information available and I am 23 prepared to discuss in additional detail all of the testing 24 conducted to date if you so desire. ,
l 25 MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry. What's the difference ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
)
i
c '
18 i l
r~T 1 between the white and the yellow?
(/
2 MR. KLINE: The yellow are four tests that I'm l 3 going to be discussing in more detail as part of this I
4 presentation.
5 Starting with the first one, load swing test, 6 ST-34. The load swing test was performed at 30 percent and 7 50 percent power. The objective of this test is to ensure 8 the plant control systems constrain operational transients 9 within acceptable tolerances to preclude a unit trip and 10 reestablish steady-state equilibrium between primary and 11 secondary systems during a 10 percent load change.
I 12 The acceptance criteria for successful tests 13 include: not lifting the atmospheric steam-dump valves,
-( ) 14 steam generator safety valves, power-operated relief valves 15 or pressurizer safety valves. Additionally, no manual 16 intervention should be required to bring the plant to 17 steady-state conditions. Implicit in these requirements is 18 the proper operation of rod control and steam generator 19 level control systems. On both occasions, the performance 20 of the plant was satisfactory.
21 Turbine-generator startup test, ST-48, was 22 performed to obtain base line data on the turbine generator 23 and associated component's operating parameters at various 24 loads and to perform necessary tests and adjustments at 25 various power plateaus as part of the General Electric
- (~ s .
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i l
19
() 1 alignment procedure for the electro-hydraulic control i 2 systems and the generator exitation system.
3 various checks involving speed matching, initial' I 4 trip tests and inspections were performed off-line.
5 Additional testing and adjustments were made at the 10 )
6 percent, 30 percent and 50 percent power, including over-7 speed testing, voltage regulator adjustments, and power load 8 unbalanced circuitry tests.
9 This test has resulted in realignment and/or i
10 modification to the differential expansion detector, our j 11 generator cooling valve, the mechanical over-speed device 12 and solenoid valves on the steam valve actuators.
13 The expected initial bearing vibrations occurred, o
(_ 14 were addressed and are now acceptable. We will continue to 15 monitor the bearings through the Power Ascension Test 16 Program.
17 At present, the turbine generator and support 18 systems are working well. General Electric representatives 19 will provide assistance as we continue the checks and 20 adjustments throughout our testing program.
21 ST-33, shutdown from outside the control room was ,
22 performed at 20 percent power after a controlled reduction 23 from 50 percent power. The purpose of this test was to 24 demonstrate the capability to shut down the reactor and 25 maintain it in a hot standby condition from the remote safe O
O
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
20 1 shutdown panels.
([ }
2 This test was challenging in that it involved a 3 combined crew composed of two operating crews and one test 4 crew. The test also required extensive communications and b was ?ffectively completed. As I mentioned earlier, this 6 crew was recently trained on the test.
7 The test was initiated by manually tripping the 8 reactor from outside the control room. And operating crew 9 . manned the remote safe shutdown facilities and performed the 10 shutdown utilizing the plant equipment that can be 11 controlled from the remote panels. The plant was 12 effectively controlled from the remote safe shutdown panel 13 and the crew communications were very efficient. An
(_) 14 operations procedure is presently being reviewed to 15 determine if clarification should be made as a result of our 16 test experience.
17 ST-41.1, turbine torsional test was initially e
18' begun on April 28th and was completed on May 29th, after 19 modifications werc made to the turbine. The purpose of the 20 turbine torsional test was to determine the natural
- 21. frequencies of the turbine water system.
22 General Electric, our turbine vendor, strongly 23 recommended that we perform this test. We concurred that 24 the performance of the test was appropriate to ensure 25 reliability of the unit.
o l Ns Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
e 21 1 The test was performed by first instrumenting 2 numerous locations along the length of the turbine and then 3 measuring the natural frequencies of the turbine-generator 4 system with a simulated negative sequence current applied to 5 the generator.
6 The results of this test showed that the last 7 stage buckets of the low pressure C turbine would resonate 8 at 119.9 hertz on the 26th harmonic. The condition of being 9 on 119.9 hertz indicate that we were susceptible to high-10 cfcle fatigue stresses on the roots of the last stage 11 buckets. This condition required the turbine to be detuned.
12 The detuning was accomplished by replacing the 13 rods in the last stage buckets and brazing these rods to the-(f 14 buckets. The bright areas at the mid point and again near 15 the end of the buckets are the locations of the brazing.
16 This modification detuned the turbine by shifting 17 the natural frequency of the unit to approximately 122.5 18 hertz.
19 A torsional test was completed on May 29th, and 20 the turbine generator was synchronized to the grid later 21 that day.
22 The General Electric computer models had predicted 23 a natural frequency of 121.4 hert.z. As I mentioned earlier,
/
24 the testing determined the actual frequency to be 119.9.
25 After detuning, the predicted value was 123.4 hertz, and the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 m_
22 1 test determined the actual frequency to be 122.5.
2 Our testing experience thus far in the program, 3 with the exception of the turbine generator torsional 4 testing, has not identified any significant problems. The 5 turbine modifications were accomplished ahead of schedule 6 through the efforts of the entire organization,-and the 7 implementation was consistent with our conservative testing 8 approach.
9 'A good indicator of plant performance is to l 10 compare our test program results to those of similar 11 Westinghouse four-loop plants. As you can see from the 1
12 displayed parameters, our reactor trip results are 13 favorable. Additionally, our test results are close to
) 14 predicted results, i
15 Secondary chemistry is taking a little time to 16 clean up, but the situation is similar to what we had i
17 expected and is typical of recent vintage plants. Bruce 18 Drawbridge will discuss chemistry in more detail.
19 We did experience an event during the test program l 20 that was not what we desired. A turbine trip on April 4th 21 was due to maintenance-activities that did not meet our
-22 expectations. Bruce Drawbridge will be covering this event 23 in d6 tail so I will not go into it other than to say that 12 4 the plant operations and test personnel performed as 25 expected.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
23 1 As.I mentioned earlier, we did revise-the Power
} '
2 Ascension Test Program to correct weaknesses identified
- 3. during the evaluation of the turbine trip. One item of 4 interest is the modification that we made to the vent piping
~
5 between the moisture separator reheater and heater drain 6~ tank. This modification was installed to preclude potential L
7 turbine trips due to transient high_ water levels and the l~
8 moisture separator reheaters during plant load reductions, u 9 This modification involved the installation of vent piping 1
10 between the heater drain tank and the moisture separator 11 reheater to equalize pressure between these two volumes.
12 This will prevent the forcing of water back to the moisture 13 separator reheater following a load reduction. This
>f. .
( 14 modification was installed and tested while work was ongoing-15 on the tuth'.ne.
1 16 Our experience to day during the power ascension l 17 testing has shown the design change enhanced operation:of 1-L 18 the secondary plant.
19 As we continue with power ascending testing, we'll 20 be performing the tests indicated on the slides. I'll 12 1 discuss briefly four major tests that will be performed.
22 These are the tests that are-highlighted on the slide in l
-23 yellow.
24 Large load reduction best, ST-35, will demonstrate 25 plant response and automatic control system perforn.snce for O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
24
~
't 1 a large load reduction of approximately 50 percent. The
(~f N
2 general objective of the large load reduction test is_to 3 ensure that plant control systems constrain operational 4~ transients to within acceptable tolerances so as to preclude 5 unit trip and establish steady-state power equilibrium-6 between primary and secondsry systems. A large load-7 reduction will performed by simulating a turbine setback 8 condition.
9 Unit trip from 100 percent, ST-38, will be used to l 10 demonstrate plant transient response to a trip from 100 l
11 percent power and to verify that the actual overall hot leg 12 resistance temperature detector response time is 13 conservative with respect to the value used in accident
)' 14 analysis.
15 The test will be initiated by tripping the 16 generator, after which selected plant pa.Tameters will be 17 monitored. Once the unit trip takes place, appropriate 18 emergency hand normal operating procedures will be utilized:
19 to recover the plant in a stable hoc standby condition.
20 The plant will then be in a condition to begin 21 -natural circulation testing, ST-22. The natural circulation 22 test will verify that the primary plant has the capability 23 to establish a natural circulation flow and remove decay 24 heat. After the trip from 100 percent power, the reactor 25 coolant pumps will be secured _nd plant parameters will be (O
\_/
I!eritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
25 1 monitored to verify the flow of heat removal capabilities.
2 The loss of offsite power test, ST-39, will 3 demonstrate that the emergency electrical power system will 4 respond in accordance with design under loss of offsite 5 power coincidence with a loss of main generator.
I 6 Additionally, the test will demonstrate that the reactor 7 plant can be maintained in a stable condition under natural 8 circulation conditions. ,
9 'The test will be initiated from approximately 20 10 percent power, but above the P-9 set point.- The following +
11 will be demonstrated:
12 First, both emergency diesel generators, reach rate l- .
13' and voltage and frequency within 10 seconds from the start -
14 signal, and emergency power sequences perform their design 15 function to sequence loads on the emergency buses that are 16 required =for loss of offsite power.
17 Our plan for the remainder of the Power Ascension 18 Test Program is to continue in our conservative approach to 19 testing. As I mentioned earlier, we have had good success 20 with our combined operating and test crews working as a
.21 team. I believe that the entire NHY organization has worked 22 as a team to support the Power Ascension Test Program.
23 This concludes my prepared remarks. I would now 24 like to introduce Bruce Drawbridge, the Executive Director 25 of Nuclear Production, who will discuss some of our A)
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 26 ,
l
[~) 1 equipment and human performance issues. I
~-
2 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: Thank you, Gary.
3 My name is Bruce Drawbridge, and I am the j 4 Executive Director of Nuclear Production for New Hampshire l l
5 Yankee. I am responsible for the operation of Seabrook )
6 Station and for the conduct of the Power Ascension Test l 7 Program. l 8 I'll discuss =some elements of the Power Ascension 9 Test Program and some of the events that happened during the 1 10 program implementation. Additionally, I'll discuss a few 11 areas where we are devoting additional attention. ;
12 As Gary mentioned, we've completed the first half 13 of our Power Ascension Test Program. We utilized the four-14 week period while the turbine was being modified to perform 15 some maintenance activities that would have been-performed--
16 during the 50 percent maintenance outage. As a result, no 17 major maintenance effort is necessary.
18 The plant is currently in Mode 2 at 3 percent
'19 power, prepared to continue power ascension testing.
20 The Power Ascension Test Program has been 21 effective and has progressed favorably. The major hardware-22' related problems involve the turbine generator as a result 23 of the torsional testing. As Gary mentioned, we conducted 1
24 the torsional teeting after consulting with General 25 Electric. Even though the modifications took an extended O
V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
27 f')
N-1 period of time and delayed our program,-they were necessary 2 to ensure reliable operation of the turbine. This approach 3 reinforced our conservative philosophy in plant operations.
4 We have noted increases in the chemical ,
5 contaminants in our secondary chemistry. These conditions 6 were expected and are typical of conditions experienced by 7 plants during initial startup. The major contributors'to 8 the secondary chemistry contaminants were the clean up, ;
9 scale deposits on piping, protective coatings on equipment 10- and.other products that are expected to wash out with- -i 11' initial steam flow.
12 Once we began our power increase to 30 percent 13 power plateau, we detected the increase in cation l')
\/ 14 conductivity and other elements due to the increased steam 15 and feedwater flow. We expect to see more of these l
16 contaminants washing out as we increase steam and feedwater 17 flow at higher power levels.
18 We will be continuing to clean the secondary by
[ 19- use of blowdown, and as necessary, filtering with> carbon l
20~ beds and deminerializers. <
21 We are' committed to the EPRI chemistry guidelines 22 and will continue to utilize Westinghouse analysis and 23- startup experience to support our secondary chemistry 24 control.
25 We've experienced two challenges to our O
Heritage Reporting Corporation p (202) 628-4888
28
- 1 configuration control program. The first challenge was the
\~ 2 turbine trip of April 4th which was caused by slide links in !
3 the turbine electric hydraulic control circuitry being left 4 open during troubleshooting on a speed control problem. '
5 We stopped testing while an extensive evaluation 6 was conducted of the turbine trip to ensure that the root 7 causes of the trip were understood and that the appropriate 8 corrective actions were taken. The evaluation determined 9 that the slide links should have been closed after the j:
101 opened work request was evaluated as part of the system i 11 readiness review process.
12 The shift superintendent and the test director 13 were aware that the work request was open. However, due to
{} 14 a poor shift turnover communication within the INC 15 Department, they did not realize that the slide links had 16 been left open.
17 Extensive corrective actions were implemented, 18 including a clarification of the responsibilities and 19 revision of the Power Ascension Test Program to enhance the 20 multi-disciplined review of the work package for those work 21 requests which are in progress. This review is conducted by 22 the work group supervisor, the shift superintendent and the 23 test director.
24 Additionally, we have established criteria for 25 shift turnover and updated our shift turnover policy for all O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_._ _ m _
29
- ( ) 1 departments. !
2 We believe that these actions adequately addressed 3 our concerns and the testing that we have conducted 4 subsequently has shown the actions to be effective.
5 The second challenge of our configuration control 6 program involved the discovery of pressure transmitter PT-7 506 being valved out of service. Again, we stopped testing 8 and completed a detailed evaluation of the event and 9 determined that our instrumentation and control department 10 did not adequately control certain valves associated with ,
11 vendor-supplied rack-mounted equipment.
12 The valve in question was-not normally operated by-13 INC personnel-and was not included in the INC procedures.
14 Actic:,yas initiated to perform 100 percent walk-down of all- '
15 the vendor-supplied rack-mounted instruments in the plant 16 and to lock-wire open all the instrument rack bulkhead 17 isolation valves. t 18 We then walked down-all other safety and important' 19 safety-related instrumentation. Additionally, we have ,
20 initiated a review of the repetitive task sheets used to 21 perform technical specification required calibrations to 22 ensure that the instrumentation valve lineups include all 23 the valves associated with the instrumentation.
24 We believe that we have resolved the individual 25 problems associated with these events. Self-assessment team i
Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 1
l I
30 1 has made some recommendations in the configuration control 2 area _that we'll be implementing.
3 Additionally, in order to improve our (
4 configuration control program, we'll be conducting an 5 evaluation of our total work control program for 6 configuration control considerations. l 7 One of our employees,'who is currently on loan to 8 INPO, who has had extensive maintenance evaluation 9 cxperience, will be returning to the plant at the end of the !
10 month. He will be a member of this team and will look at d 11 our entire configuration control program, and should bring.
12 valuable industry insight _to this review. j 13 Our-goal is to strengthen our overall lh_ 14 configuration control program.
15 An essential element of our evaluations is the 16 inclusion of an in depth root cause analysis. We have 17 demonstrated proficiency at analyzing major events and
.18 determining the appropriate actions. However, we have not 19 consistently applied root cause techniques to day-to-day 20 occurrences, to determine the appropriate actions to 21 preclude reoccurrence. We will be devoting additional 22 attention to this area and we will be enhancing our root 23 cause process to establish additional reviews of those 24 events that do not require the establishment of an event 25 evaluation team.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
a 31
' (~T 1 Enhancement will be by means of a root cause G/
2 determination process that will assist individuals and 3 departments in their review of issues associated with 4 station information reports, operations information reports, 5 and maintenance work requests.
6 Additionally, we'll be enhancing our maintenance 7 program to establish criteria for determining the degree of 8 root cause analysis that is warranted when equipment 9 problems arise.-
10 We have chosen-to utilize a two-level analysis' 11 system such that the more serious events receive a full-12 multi-disciplined analysis while other. problems receive a 13 few that is appropriate based upon the magnitude of the
'(O,) 14 event.
11 5 (Continued on next page.)
16 17 i
18 19
~
I 20 21
- 22 23
, 24 l
l 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
32 }
1 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: The failures of our radiation A( / ,
2 data monitoring system that occurred in the spring of this 3 year are a good example of where we experienced several 4 failures in-the RDMS detectors prior to establishment of a 5 team to perform a thorough' root cause analysis. Since the ,
6 completion of the team's review and the implementation of 7 the short term corrective actions, we have had no further ,
8 RDMS failures. .i i
9- We believe that the incorporation of these 10 analytical skills into our day to day work activities will 11 help improve our ability to promptly analyze problems.
12 Procedural revisions are currently being evaluated. And we i
13 anticipate having appropriate revisions issued by July 30th.
_x f
I,_) 14 On April 17th, the reactor was at 11 percent 15 power. In ST-48, the turbine generator start-up test was in 16 progress. The turbine generator was at reduced speed in a 17 not yet synchronized-grid. Maintenance work on the 18 Tewkesbury 345 KV line had been completed and the line-was 19- being restored per a Manchester-control. center switching 20 order. The 345 KV lines are controlled by the dispatcher in 21 Manchester.
22 When we attempted to close the breaker to restore 23 the line, the breaker tripped on an instantaneous over 24 current. The dispatcher subsequently stated that the 25 switching order was not correct when we had attempted to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 33 1- close-in on the ground.
.7_
b ' 2 Approximately three hours later, the dispatcher 3 notified the control room that the Newington end of the 345 74 KV line had tripped at the time of the event and was 5 reclosed eight minutes after the trip. With both the 6 Newington and Tewkesbury lines open, we were in the action 7 statement of technica]. specifications for eight minutes.
8 The turbine tripped due to low-lube oil pressure 9 as a result of the lube oil pumps tripping from the l' 10 electrical tangent. The reactor did not trip because we II 11 were below the P-9. ,
12 .The control room personnel correctly terminated 13 the test procedure and entered the operating procedure for a
/~T- 14 . turbine trip below P-9. Our vent evaluation determined that ,
l V l 15 .the plant and operator response was appropriate. ,
,-. 16 The event did point out however areas for L
L -17 improvement in our interface with load dispatchers. As a 18 result, we revised our procedures to double-check and. verify
[ 19 dispatcher switching orders whenever possible.
1 L 20 Additionally, we have reinforced with the dispatchers their 3 21 responsibility to promptly communicate losses of offesite 22 power to the control room. The load dispatchers are now 23 aware of the importance of informing the control room
, 24 promptly of any conditions affecting the lines feeding 25 Seabrook Station.
l 1
('N L
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
34-1 As 2 mentioned earlier, we utilized the time that 2 the turbine modification work was in progress to perform l 3
~
some maintenance activities that were identified during the 4 initial stages of the power ascension test program.
5 I would like to update you on our maintenance l 6 activities, and in particular our work request backlog. The 7 work request backlog as of June lith is 815_ work requests ,
I 8 which is 65 work requests over our steady state goal of 750. "
9 You will notice that the number of work requests has cycled 10 as we have gone through minor outages such as the turbine fi 11 repairs or major activities such as the walk-down instrument 12 racks.
13 The number of open work requests will rise and I 14
~
fall due to major plant evolutions in delayed work 15- activities. Our program requires the use of a separate work ,
C 16 request for each activity.
17 Our power ascension testing performance to'date i 18 has demonstrated.that we have developed an effective 19 operating team at New Hampshire Yankee, and that we are 20 making a safe and conservative transition to an operating 21 organization.
22 Performance has not been flawless. However, I am 23 pleased so far with our progress. Our management team has 7 24 _ instilled a conservative operating philosophy, and we have 25 not continued with testing until all of the circumstances O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
35
(~l-R./
1 surrounding an event are known and understood.
2 I can assure you thkL'for the remainder of the 3 power ascension test program.and for the continued 4 operations of Seabrook Station that we will continue to 5 operate the plant in a safe and conservative manner.
6 I will now turn the presentation over to 7 Ed Desmaris,'our independent review team manager, who will 8 address our self-assessment program.
9 MR .~ -DESMARIS: Thank you, Bruce.
10 Good afternoon. I am Ed Desmaris, the manager.of 11 the independent review team. And I will describe the 12 New Hampshire Yankee self-assessment for power ascension 13 testing.
) 14 New Hampshire Yankee established a 15 self-assessment team to evaluate the preparations and 16 conduct of power ascension testing at Seabrook Station. .
17 This assessment has been. conducted in two phases. Phase I 18 verified that open inspection,. audit, and self-critique
'19 . issues were resolved, and that preparations for power '
c 20 ascension testing were adequate.
21 Phase II started in December 1989 and has assessed 22 the implementation and conduct of the power ascension test 23 program and operational programs.
24 The second phase of the self-assessment involves a 25 comprehensive and detailed self-evaluation of New Hampshire l,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 36 l 1 Yankee's. conduct in specific detailed areas of evaluation.
2 Within these topical areas, the self-assessment 3 effort has focused on organizational performance and 4 activities as well as those design features tested during 5 the power ascension testing evolution. The self-assessment 6 team consists of five New Hampshire Yankee management or-7' staff personnel, two senior individuals from Yankee Electric 8 Company, and three contracted individuals.
9 These individuals have significant industry-10 operational experience in the functional areas that they 11 have evaluated. The team members have not been involved or 12 responsible for the activities being assessed. This 13 provides the-independence necessary to evaluate the adequacy h' 14 of power ascension testing and readiness for full power 15 operation. To date, New Hampshire Yankee has expended 16 approximately 8000 man-hours'in conducting the Phase II 17 self-assessment; 18 The self-assessment. team is organized into'five 19 groups formed by combining related functional-areas with 20- each group reporting to the independent review team manager.
-21 the independent review team manager in turn reports to the-22 New Hampshire Yankee management oversight committee which 23 consists of the president and chief executive officer, the 24 senior vice president, the chief operating officer, the 25 executive director of nuclear production, the executive O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
37 j l
qgg -1 director of engineering and licensing, the director of l
2- quality programs, and the station manager. ;
3 The management oversight committee provides 4 direction to the self-assessment team, enlists the support ;
5 of New Hampshire Yankee organizations in resolving issues, 6 and assists in the implementation of approved 7 recommendations. '4 8 The 50 percent power plateau report summarizes the j 9 status of self-assessment activities conducted to date and 10 provides recommendations for improved performance. 'The SAT 11 arrived at these recommendations by evaluating'each 12 functional area against a detailed set of performance:
13 objectives and criteria. The evaluation activities included Ih 14 participating in training sessions, reviewing programs.and 15 procedures, observing each step of the work control process, i 16 conducting interviews with people at all' levels in the 17 company, observing the conduct of'the power ascension l
18 testing, and conducting several special event evaluations.
19 Before I describe these special event evaluations, 20 I would like to take the time to mention some of the 21 highlights in the areas of improvement that have resulted 22 thus far in the Phase II assessment.
23 The self-assessment team has observed a strong 24 working relationship between the operations and power 25 ascension test groups. Each crew has demonstrated its O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
38 7
c 1 teamwork in the-way_that they have conducted the test
\/
'~
2 program.
3 At the conclusion of various tests, the test 4 directors have rigorously reviewed test results and 5 developed complete test packages for the station operation 6 review committee. The operations group has established 7 strong command presence in focusing the activities of the 8 station on operational issues.
9_ And example that demonstrates this point is that 10 station manager's morning meeting. This_ meeting begins with 11 the operations manager providing the plant _ status and 12 establishing the priority of work efforts required to 13 sopport.the plant. Support and staff groupe take this
() 14 direction to prioritize their own work activities. The day 15 shift superintendent subsequently reinforces this direction 16 at the plan of the day meetings.
17 The technical support group has provided strong 18 support to operations, maintenance.and chemistry. As an 19 example, their efforts proactively anticipated potential 20 problems on feedwater control. They have also been-21 thoroughly involved in correcting equipment deficiencies i 22 identified as part of the test program.
23 The SAT has also identified areas for improvement.
24 The absence of radiation in the plant has not yet fully 25 challenged the radiation protection program. The full
- - /3 V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
39 r')
1 program implementation has identified a number of ,
i 'uJ l 2 programmatic enhancements and pract3 cal solutions to improve 3 efficiency and effectiveness. As the station gains 4 experience'with this program, additional improvements are 5 anticipated. l 6 The SAT review of work control practices has also I 7 indicated areas for improvement in outstanding work requests 8 and strengthening the scope change and rework parts of thei 9 process. The SAT has also recommended that maintenance 10 develop an internal performance measurement system. l 11 Similar to radiation protection, the recent 12 implementation of the rad waste program has identified areas 13 where the programs and practices can be improved. The full i
X_/ 14 implementation of this program coupled with the completion-
- 15. of the decontamination facility will strengthen this area.
16 In addition to these_ areas for improvement, the 17 SAT has conducted several special evaluations. Bruce:has e
18 already described the turbine trip, the turbine impulse 19 pressure transmitter PT-506, and the radiation. data _;
'20- management system.
21 The SAT reviewed and concurred with the corrective 22 actions identified by the station. Our analysis al.C 23 indicated that these reviews were thorough and tl
- the 24 corrective actions were focused on preventing a recurrent 25 event.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
40 'l
(~}
x/
1 As was mentioned, the corrective actions for these l
2 events included enhancements to specific aspects of 3 configuration control. The SAT review of these events and 4 the overall self-assessment activities also indicate that 5 .the configuration controls can be improved. Overall, New 6 . Hampshire Yankee has effective controls for individual 7 activities such as tagging and document revisions. The SAT i
8 has recommended that these systems should be reviewed and 9 integrated more effectively.
L 10 The SAT issued thirteen recommendations-from these >
1 l 11. special event evaluations with eight recommendations 12 pertaining to the radio system, three to RDMS, one on the l> 13 turbine trip, and one on the electrical manholes. These 14 recommendations art inc]uded in the 53 recommendations that i 15 are included in ene 50 percent report.
16 Six of the 53 recommendations,have already been 17' completed, and n,one of theorecommendations are prerequisites 18 to the contin,1ation of further power ascension testing. 'The p 19 remaining 47 recommeadstions are enhancements to existing 20 programs, procedures, and management controls that will be l- 21 accomplished on a longer term basis.
1 l
22- The recommendation summary in Section 3 of the l
l 23 report provides a brief description of each recommendation, L
l 24 the respective functional area, an assigned functional 25 manager, and reflects the use of New Hampshire Yankee's k
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e>
41 1 1
.1 integrated commitment tracking system for activities
( }-
2 requiring completion.
3 The SAT Phase II assessment will continue through 4 the balance of the power ascension program. The evaluation 5 will' continue with the primary emphasis on the conduct of 6 testing and related'eupport activities. In addition, the ;;
7 self-assessment team is currently conducting a special 8 maintenance evaluation using a combination of internal, 9 industry, and NRC criteria. This special maintenance 10 evaluation began in May and will be completed by the end.of 11 this month. The SAT will present the maintenance evaluation 12 report to the management oversight committee in early July.
13 At the conclusion of the power ascension test
]b 14 program, the SAT will brief the senior resident on the final' 15 Phase II SAT assessment.results including the special i 16 maintenance evaluation.
17 ' Based on assessment activities conducted to date, 18 the SAT includes the following. New Hampshire Yankee has ,
19 conducted power ascension testing in a' deliberate, cautious, 20 and conservative manner. The conduct and results of power 21 ascension testing have demonstrated the proper focus en 22 plant personnel and. plant safety, a close correlation of 23 physical plant performance to design conditions, and an 24 overall readiness to continue with the testing above the 25 50 percent power plateau.
O l Heritage Reporting Coqporation (202) 628-4888 p
i.
42 f^y 1 The operations and power ascension test groups are
%j 2 well integrated, and they have_ demonstrated thorough and 3 appropriate command and control. And they have successfully 4 executed their responsibilities for conducting' test 5 activities. !
6 New Hampshire Yankee as an organization has made i 7 progress in transitioning to an operations environment. ,
8 Preparatory activities such as operations training and 9 procedures have proven to be effective in the conduct of 10 testing..
11 New Hampshire Yankee maintains an effective and L 12 visible quality program that provides feedback to management 1
13 on corporate and plant activities. New Hampshire Yankee
/~N
( J- 14 recognizes the need to continually seek improvements and l 15 enhancements in the conduct of activities and programmatic 16 requirements.- And finally, management presence and
-17 participation has contributed to the effective conduct of l L 18 power ascension testing.
19 This concludes my remarks on the power ascension 20 test program's self-assessment efforts. I wil1~ now return 21 the presentation to Ted Feigenbaum to provide concluding 22 remarks.
23 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Thanks.
24 As Bruce mentioned, the plant is currently in 25 Mode II, and we have completed the scheduled maintenance and O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
b l 43 i
7, 1 inspections that we had planned for this portion of the l
L i)'_ . .2 power ascension test program. All of the power ascension j l
3 tests scheduled through the 50 percent power plateau have !
4 been' completed and the maintenance bachlog at this point is 5 at a reasonable level.
6 We believe that we have demonstrated.our 7 commitment to a safe and a conservative test program and a 8 . safe and conservative operating philosophy as well. We have 9 an effective self-assessment program in effect that we are 10 monitoring our testing activities, and reporting to our s 11 management oversight committee right through 100 percent 12 power.
13 We provided you, the NRC staff, with copies of the 7, 14 self-assessment' team's report on the power ascension test =
}-
15 program through.the.50 percent power level. However, of 16 course, we will not stop.doing self-assessments upon.
17 completion of the test program. Our quality program e
18 subdivision includes a' standing independent-review team.
19 The IRT is a permanent part of our organization, and by the 20 way has been for the past six years, and will continue to 21 perform self-assessments for the life of the unit.-
22 We are still striving to improve our performance.
23 But I believe that we have been successful in establishing 24 the proper attitude towards plant operations, an attitude 25 that puts safety first before the production schedule, that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
p l
44
(( 1 2-recognizes the important of following procedures.
includes thorough preparation prior to initiating plant That 3 evolutions, and maintains a receptiveress.to l l
4 self-critiques and desires to constantly improve our j 5 performance.
6 Thus far, I believe that our plant equipment and ;
7 operating team have performed very well overall. And {
i 8 therefore, it is our intent and our current plan to continue ,
9 with the power ascension testing subject to your input and- l 10 your comments this afternoon. l i
11 Gentlemen, this essentially concludes New i 12 Hampshire Yankee's presentation this' afternoon. If you i
13 would like to-discuss any particular aspect of the power 14 ascension test. program or our self-assessment, we would be 15 happy to respond to any questions that you have.
16- MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Ted. We appreciate the- ,
l 17 presentation. I think that a number of us have some i
.18 questions that we would like to use this opportunity to ask 19 you those questions and solicit your response. I think that i i
20 I would like to start it off.
21 We have noted your assessment of the maintenance 22 requests backlog. And I know that you have established a !
23' goal, and I think I heard you say that you feel that you are 24 adequately managing the backlog and prioritizing the 25 maintenance requests.
O.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
45 1 We have had a number of-inspections that have 2 looked at maintenance, and we have found some isolated ,
31 problems. But I think that I would like you to address the 4 staffing overall. I think in conjunction with the backlog 5 of maintenance requests that we have noted an outstanding 6 number of engineering support requests or engineering 7 service requests.
8 So from the standpoint of maintenance backlog and 9 engineering service requests, could you address your -
10 assessment of the adequacy of your resources, let's put it r 11 that way?
12 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: Why don't I talk first about 13 maintenance. As you mentioned, Mr. Johnson, we do have a
(')\
q, - 14 ' priority system for our work requests, one through four plus 15 priority. We use that as a management tool in order to 16 ~ -focus on the work that really has to be done right away as 17 opposed to work that can be done as part of the system week.
p 18 We have a system week concept, such that for routine work 19 that a. system is going to be taken out of service to be
- 20. worked on, we can then do that work request at that time.
21 By its-nature, you will see a bit of a backlog, 22 because some of those work requests are waiting for that 23 particular system week to occur. Those are primarily 24 priority three type work requests. And that will drive the 25 backlog to a certain extent.
i
.e+
%d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
~
46'
1 You mentioned a little bit about manpower. We do L
\_};
L 2 watch this carefully,-because we watch our overtime.
3 Obviously, our overtime fluctuates quite a. bit, especially l 5 4 when we are being challenged. For example, when we had the 5 turbine outage recently, our overtime did,go up as expected, 6 because obviously we wanted to get the turbine work 7 completed as soon as possible. i 8 We are continuing to monitor generically how we do 9 our maintenance work and to assure that we have a sufficient 10 number of people to do what we have to do. And we are going .
11 to be monitoring that from now on to when we get to a real 12 steady state situation and see how things shake out. Right 13 now, we think that we are adequate. We certainly am not ,
O 14 j, j fat, but we think that we are adequate, and we-will go on 15 from there.
16 On the RESs, we do manage that too as well. We i
17 have an on site committee that is chaired by the assistant d '
e 18 plant manager that reviews all outstanding requests for 19 engineering services. And there are station people on.
I 20 there, operations and maintenance managers on there, as well 21 as the engineering manager too as well. And that combined 22 committee prioritizes the RESs as to which ones they want, 23 that they really need right away, and which ones can be 24 worked out as part of the overall plan for this year as to 1 25 how we work them down.
h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
47 1 And depending upon the particular request, -
2 engineering request, we can get a very fast turnaround 3 depending upon what priority we put on it. F 4- MR. JOHNSON: What about the low priority requests 5 that stay for let's say a long period of time? I assume 6 that indicates that it is still your desire to solve.the !
i 7 problem but it is not an immediate safety concern. How do i 8 you get back to the initiator of that request that you are-9 still interested in solving the problem but that it is not 10 the right time yet?
11 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: In some of those cases where we i i
12 have RESs that are outstanding for awhile, it is a matter of'
~
13 explaining how the system works back to the individual or '
)() 14 whatever that is not really a problem, but it is due to the 15 perception of an individual who thought that it was a- ;
16 problem, and we have to bring that to full closure in some 17 cases, i e
18- In other cases, it is a matter of something that- '
19 we do want to do as a plant betterment for example that just j 20 is not a high priority. It is something that certainly is 21 not safety related by any stretch of the imagination, but 22 something in the longer term that we might still want to-23- perform. And we manage that as we go along.
24 MR. FEIGENBAUM: But items that affect operability 25 of equipment or personnel safety issues get a high priority O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.. J
^
48
('h 8) 1 in our schedule and acted on in.a reasonable period of time.
t 2 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: The intent is to capture all of.
3 -these. That is what is important. We want to capture all 4 of these requests and ensure that they are effectively 5 managed.
6- MR. JOHNSON: Dick Nerses would like to ask a f 7 question. <
8 MR. NERSES: Can you kind of give us the I 9 percentage of the backlog of what falls into the priority,
- 10. what percent are threes or fours, do you have a breakout of i 11 that?
'12 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: I am sorry, for the work 13 requests, or for the RESs?
('T A_). 14 MR. NERSES: Both. ,
15 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: I have it for the~ work-requests.
16 MR. NERSES: You gave us the backlog, the 815.
17 And-I am sure that that breakout is priority one, two, e
18 three, and for in certain percentages.
- i l
19 Mn. DRAWBRIDGE: I have the actual numbers. I do 20 not have the priorities, Vic. When this data was given-to 1
21 me , there were three priority ones. They are probably all I i 22 closed out by now. There were 121 priority twos, 593 l 23 priority threes, and 112 priority fours.
p 24 MR. NERSES: So no priority ones?
1
! 25 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: There were three priority ones.
i' J ) l
(~/
\_ .
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l-(202) 628-4888 1
i
y 49 l
1 MR. HERSES: Oh, I am sorry.
2 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: This is of the lith. Those have 3 since been closed out. In fact, this past weekend that 1 4 know of there were another three, three different ones.
5 Priority ones, they usually last only like two days. They 6 are of very short duration.
7 MR. BROWN Bruce, for the record, would you give 8 a definition, a brief definition of what is one, two, three, 9 and four?
10 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: Oh, okay, sure. Priority ones 11 are primarily those things that are either personal safety 12 hazards, to satisfy a situation, to satisfy a technical 13 specification, lim! ting condition for operation, return 14 accident monitoring instrumentation back into service or its 15 backup, return the backup plant computer back into service, 16 and that is about it.
17 Priority twos, those are items that may impact the 18 plant's ability to maintain the system in an operable 19 status. Priority threes, those are basically system week 20 type of work. This is work that can be performed as l
21 manpower or scheduling activities allow. And priority fours
- g. 22 by their nature we characterize as fill-in work.
23 MR. FEIGENBAUM: I think regarding requests for 24 engineering services that we track that very closely as 25 well. Every one of these RESs are logged and reviewed by O Glsritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
50 1 engineering before it is prioritized. Jed DeLoach sends me 2 a report each week, and he can summarize the status of RESs 3 at this point.
4 MR. DELOACH: Thrink you. I am Jed DeLoach, 5 Executive Director of Engineering and Licensing.
6 Victor, we track not only RESs but really a whole 7 wide variety of engineering action items including design 8 change requests, DRRs or document revision requests, RESs, 9 program procedure actions, drawing changes, and a number of 10 other actions.
11 Our backlog at the current time of our total 12 program is about 118 items. That vae as of the 15th. And 13 we started the year with 2400. We had our own goal to get
() 14 down to 1200. It is a reasonable number. In terms of the 15 RESe, we were about at 860 at the beginning of the year, and 16 we are et 803 now in terms of backlog.
17 The real old items are dealing with issues that 18 are one, first refueling items such as looking at shielding 19 which we now through the program have saw no need to get 20 into until this current time. And in other cases, they are 21 actions which would enhance our engineering program such as 22 coming up with a different method for doing voltage 23 reduction calculations or voltage d: cop calculations in 24 different circuitry with different computer programe, 25 or looking at temporary lighting in the service Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L ,
51 3 l
{} I 2
water transition structures to see if the lighting can be improved. And they are not really industrial or nuclear j 3 safety issues, but really things that we want to do in the !
j 4 future. !
5 We do have a very strong program in place that was )
6 initiated in 1986, and we art seeing the numbers come down 7 in a position direction. I hope that answers the question.
8 MR. NERSES: Did you have a breakout on that 9 priority-wise too?
10 MR. DELOACH: I do not have the listing by 11 priority, no, not with me. I will have to get back to you ,
1 12 on that.
13 MR. KANE: Have you assessed the impacts of the ,
(J 14 backlogs or managing the backlogs in terms of other factors 15 such as overtime, I think y0u mentioned, training, and the 16 kinds of things that you also want to accomplish, did the l
17 self-assessment,look at those kinds of impacts?
18 MR. DESMARIS: We have looked at the entire 19 control process including the backlog of work, the type of 20 work requests that are backlogged, and the ability to ]
1 21 support plant operations directly. And that is a large 22 function of the maintenance evaluation that we are currently .
L l 23 conducting. And we have made a number of recommendations ;
i 24 that are contained in the 50 percent report that do address 1
25 the training program for control, and we will continue to. i
! l l
- l. Heritage Reporting Corporation l' (202) 628-4888 l
l
1 52 j N
1 MR. KANE: The question was really did you look at I (b 2 whether the necessary training that you expect -- we talked 3 about the backlogs and engineering and maintenance.
4 Ann in there is also a training function that you 5 expect to be carrying out and that you expect to be within i 6 certain guidelines that you have set for overtime, are you 7 seeing the impacts of driving down the backlog and effecting 8 things such as training and cvertime, did you look at that?
9 MR. DESMARIS: We art still currently looking at 10 that. And the overtime has largely been attributed to the 11 peak activities for work directed, primarily in the power 12 ascension testing it has been directed towards supporting j 23 the power ascension test program. So we have not seen
( ,) 14 evertime affecting the training program in that regard or 15 the maintenance activities.
16 The maintenance group is currently working with 17 the training group on the INPO accreditation. And that i
18 training program is being put into place at this current l 19 time.
1 1 20 MR. FEIGENBAUM: I think that we will be 1
21 evaluating our manpower out for the next thirty years. I 22 mean we will be looking at our resources continuously versus 23 our work load and making adjustments as necessary.
24 Certainly the power ascension test program has affected our 25 resources. Everybody is focused on supporting that program
(,
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888
l: 1 53
(~} 1 at this point.
s/
2 And I believe that once our power ascension test i 3 program is over that we will be able to reapply some of the 4 resources that are focused on that to reducing some of these 5 backlogs such as in the RES area. And we have set some 6 goals for the end of the year to try to get down to what I 7 think are achievable. And each year, we will take a bite 8 out of that and bring that backlog down. But this is a 9 constant reevaluation each year on manpower and resources.
10 And I expect it to continue for the life of the plant.
11 MR. KANE: You mentioned that there were 8000 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> expended in the self-assessment?
13 MR. DESMARIS Yes, right.
. r'\
() 14 MR. KANE: Could you give us some idea of the 15 distribution of those hours in terms of direct observations 16 and of activities, can you describe how those hours were 17 distributed for us a little bit and give us a summary?
e 18 MR. DESMARISt I do not have a specific breakdown 19 of hours by functional area. However, when the power
- 5 20 ascension testing was ongoing, we had three people who were 21 available to observe the testing during the day shift, the 22 swing shift, and the night shift. And for work control 23 activities, those were primarily conducted during the day 24 shift, and we had three people assigned to observe the 25 maintenance.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 rn
I I
54
(')
\_/
1 And they actually went out into the field with the 2 maintenance crews. And I would say that the majority of the I 3 time was spent in the field either observing activities 4 directly or participating in training sessions and things of 5 that nature.
6 MR. JOHNSON: Have you observed the day to day 7 workings of the on-site review committee, and if so what is 8 your assessment of that committee from a safety standpoint, 9 and have you noticed any testing results let's say in the 10 primary plant so far to date that you have had cause for .,
11 concern and you have had to go back to Westinghouse let's 12 say for the answer that your safety committee was unable to I t
13 analyze?
( 14 MR. DESMARIS: Last fall, the self-assessment team 15 conducted a special evaluation of this whole process as part 16 of the closure for the confirmatory action letter. And we 17 prepared a report that was presented to the management 18 oversight committee on that effort. We concluded that it 19 was indeed performing the safety review function that they 20 are intending to perform and that they were doing it in an 21 adequate manner.
22 We did have some recommendations associated with 23 the process at that time, and they have implemented I think 24 that it is six of the eight recommendations that we made as 25 part of the Phase I assessment.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.__. __ _ A . ._ . - .. _ _
2 h 53 7- 1 During the conduct of the power ascension test k'-
2 program, the self-assessment team members have reviewed the ,
3 results of individual start-up tests, and we have also 4 observed the review of those specific start-up tests. To my 5 knowledge, the self-assessment team has not made any 6 recommendations regarding those test results other than the 7 ones that we made to the mankgement oversight committee to 8 accept the testo and to proceed with them and continue 9 testing.
10 MR. JOHNSON: Maybe Gary could address part of 11 that question too.
12 MR. KLINE: We have in our procedures based on 13 Westinghouse recommendations that any parameters that exceed 4
14 a particular value, whether they violate the acceptance
{'} i 15 criteria or not, are given to Westinghouse for their 16 personal evaluation. They have their own monitoring system 17 as the plant is coming up to determine if we are perhaps 18 running into problems on control systems and that sort of 19 thing. So each procedure routinely sets the parameters 20 perhaps plus or minus five percent steam generator level, l
21 and those are handed over to the on-site project office for 22 their evaluation.
l i
23 They evaluated it at 30 percent parameters from
(
l 24 our testing and said that they had no problems. And they l
l 25 currenely have our 50 percent data. As of today, I do not Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 1
I I
l 56
[^)
RJ I know if we have received their review of that back. But to )
l
- 2 date, they have not had problems. )
3- MR. BROWN: May I ask just for a clarification of 1
4 the questioning. One part of your question had to do with L 1 5 if they had to go back to the vendor for information. Did l 6 we answer that?
7 MR. JOHNSON: Well, I wanted to find out what your 1
8 self-assessment was of the on-site review committee number l 9 one. And also in the review of the testing data whether you l 10 found, the second question was whether you found any i 11 anomalies in the primary plant systems that you have had to l
12 go back to Westinghouse where the on-site review committee 13 was not able to analyze it sufficiently.
( 14 And I think that you have indicated that
]
l l 15 Westinghouse has reviewed the data from the 30 percent power 1
16 plateau, but I do not really have a feeling on what you l
l 17 think about the on-site review committee I guess. Anybody l
l 18 can answer that question.
19 MR. KLINE: I will answer it, since I am also a 20 member. We conducted what I believe is a pretty extensive 1
21 review of the results prior to going to the process. So at 22 the time that we come in and provide our presentations, we 23 have in writing for the committae a full results review and l 24 a discussion of any acceptance criteria and any test i
25 exceptions that we may call out and provide a full Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
l l
l 1
57 1 explanation to them.
2 We have had one of those sessions so far for the 3 30 percent plateau. We are conducting some today and some 4 tomorrow based on 50 percent test results. The one at 5 30 percent power lasted about an hour and a half. There 6 were a lot of questions. I believe that it was a good 7 review.
8 A couple of exceptions that came to mind that were 9 discussed, for example there was a cold link heat 10 temperature that did not initially meet its acceptance 11 criteria. And we had a discrepancy between temporary RTDs i
12 that we had installed in the field for feedwater that we use j 13 for our precision, and they did not agree with our main II 14 plant computer system. Those were discussed. INC under a 15 work request went out and looked at the cold link 16 temperature and could not find the problem. The problem 17 went away. The value was then within its acceptance 18 criteria.
19 We expect that it may have been a temporary 20 temperature problem in the cabinet or a loose cog or 21 something, and they did a loop calibration. And it did not l 22 repeat itself, and we have been watching that particular 23 temperature instrument, and it was satisfactory up to and 24 including 50 percent plateau testing.
25 As far as the feedwater temperature, that was a O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
58 g3 1 temporary modification to provide what we believe is more
')
accorate instrumentation in the pipe chases for feedwater 2
3 temperature. In those cases, the hook-up between our 4 digital volt meter and the special three wire RTV that we 5 used was not as accurate as we thought it would be to 6 internal resistances in the temperature measuring device 7 itself.
8 And we contacted the VDM manufacturer and 9 discussed it with him, and went over our wiring 10 configuration and realized that we had not taken credit for 11 some resistances interne' and resolved it. It was our t
12 temporary instrumentation as opposed to our computer 13 instrumentation that was off by a few degrees and resolved
() 14 that, and it has worked fine at 50 percent.
l 15 As far as the review, they did question that. We l
L 16 did discuss it, and we discussed our plans for these two l
17 issues at that time.
e 18 MR. KANE: I want to go back to the discussion 19 earlier. I think that Ted talked about the dedicated
( 20 operating experience group.
21 I guess the 7uestion that I had for the self-22 assessment was again what old you look at in that area in l 23 terms of feedback of operating experience into the day to 24 day operation of the organization and what did you find 25 there, what did you look at?
k' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
59
-(~) 1 MR. DESMARIS: One of the SAT self-assessment team V
2 members was from the operational experience area and had 3 direct experience in how effective that program is being 4 implemented and how well it is being integrated with the :
5 existing programs within the station. And we see 6 considerable progress in that area where that program is 7 being implemented effectively.
8 For example, in the maintenance area, they have 9 actually incorporated some of those recommendations into l 10 their procedures, and we see the same thing in operations.
1 11 So we have seen measurable progress and improvement in that 12 regard.
13 MR. KANE: What are some examples of the kinds of
(~) l
(_) 14 feedback that you have had from outside the company?
15 MR. KLINE: When we first started developing the 16 program, we immediately came to the conclusion that we were 17 going to do a complete program review and procedure rewrite.
18 One of the first things that we did was go outside of.the 19 company to find people who had recently started up four loop 20 Westinghouse plants. We found four individuals. As I 21 mentioned before, we had developed four test crews. We -
22 brought in an individual to supplement each test crew, and 23 each represented on average three or four plants of recent 24 start-up.
25 They did a thorough review. We used start-up test O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
t 60 t
/~% 1 reports from milestone three Catawba, and made a number of O
2 phone calls. We have contacts throughout the industry.
3 Beyond that we had a number of site people review tho ,
4 procedures in the programs, and the entire Yankee Atomic 5 organization did yet another level of review. And I believe 6 that the successful testing that we have had to date shows I
7 that the procedures were in pretty good shape when we 8 started off.
9 Another level of review we had of course was 10 Westinghouse. Westinghouse also took a look at all of our '
11 procedures.
12 (Continued on next page.)
13 r' .
( 14 15 16 17 e
18 l
19 20 21 22 23 1 24 l
1 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
i 61
(}- 1 MR. MCCABE: E. B. McCabe. One of the major 2 problems with the PWRs during startup is the steam generator 3 level control products. Did you notice any significant 4 level control problems in loads going to 50 percent?
5 MR. KLINE: No. Things looked very good. We had 6 the initial startup constants that we placed for low power 7 operation at Westinghouse's recommendation. They are 8 involved with us on our trip avoidance program. And we have 9 been working with a specialist of theirs on-site now for i 10 quite some time. At 30 percent power, they go to a higher l
L 11 gain, a higher time constant setting to be able to better 12 handle transients at higher power levels. And I believe the 13 50 percent plateau testing still exhibited good control. !
14 One thing we are watching for is there does appear 15 to be some noise level associated with the feed reg valve !
16 control. They are oscillating a little but. But as far as l 17 overall transient response, steam generator levels come I
18 right back into its operating band very well. I 19 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: One piece of feedback we got from 20 the operators was the simulator controls are a little 21 touchier than che real plant which is I think good. It 22 challenges them in training and then, of course, when you L
l l 23 have the actual plant tends to pull out a bit, too. It 1^
l l 24 worked out quite well.
I 25 MR. MCCABE: Is your steam generator load control
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 l
l l l
62 ,
r x. 1 system analogued or digital?
L-) 1 2 MR. KLINE: It's an analogue system.
3 MR. MCCABE So it's the same system that is out 4 there in other plants. It's not the new digital system?
5 MR. KLINE: No, it's not.
6 MR. MCCABE: One of the things that one of our 7 inspections have noted is that with equipment labeling, a 8 deficiency labeling. Now, I'm not talking about caution 9 tags or red tags. I'm talking about a problem with a piece 10 of equipment being identified and where some facilities have ,
11 the program for tagging that equipment with a tag 12 identifying a deficiency and then turning in the rest, the 13 other half of that tag for a work request, the feedback I've
() 14
~
gotten recently indicates that something like 25 porcent of 15 your work requests -- and that's a rough number -- are 16 duplicates because it's attributed to the lack of such a 17 system. Have you thought about this?
18 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: Yes, In fact, we do plan to 19 initiate a deficiency tag system just partly for that 20 problem, so we won't have duplicate work request 21 subsequently have to be cancelled. It also is very helpful 22 when you're out in the field doing a walkdown if you do see q 23 a problem, you get immediate feedback as to whether it is in 24 our system or not without having to call the control room 25 and find out if it already in our work control system.
Heritage Repo rting Corporation '
(202) 628-4888
63 J ^') 1 MR. FEIGENBAUM: That was picked up by our
\,_) -
2 self-assessment team as well. And contained in here is a 3 recommendation.
4 MR. PESCHEL: Jir Peschel. The station manager or 5 the station maintenance manual went into the sort review 6 process on the 13th of June. I don't know the exact date it 7 is going to be issued, but development is in progress. )
8 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: I experienced this at a different 9 plant a few years ago and I was rather negative towards the 10 deficiency tags at first, but after we implemented them, I 11 think they are great. I think taey are very helpful.
12 MR. FEIGENBAUM: SALK is one of the last steps 13 before it is actually issued, E.B. So, it should be
) 14 relatively soon, j l
15 MR. MCCABE: One of the things that was mentioned 16 v '- P.he steam generator chemistry. And I think we all know I j
17 that over the years, the ability to measure chemistry has 18 increased with a precision of more than the provisions for 19 correctinq chemistry. And you do not have full flow i 20 de-mineralizers. And I heard some mention of an 21 installation of partial flow de-mineralizers. Could you 22 describe or expand upon what your plans are i. that regard?
23 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: A few things we are looking at 24 right now, first off, there was a recommendation out of the 25 self-assessment team to review our chemistry Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 64 1 instrumentation. The industry has improved in leaps and 2 bounds in this area and now their parts per billion are 3 getting so low, it is really amazing. So, one thing we're 4 going to be looking at is our actual detection capability.
5 In regard to full flow polishers, engineering is 6 currently conducting a study right now to look at a few ,
7 different options. One of them is a full flow 8 de-mineralizer. The second option is a partial flow.
9 Taking a slip stream, if you will, off of the condenser and 10 using that basically as a cleanup system, after a trip or !
11 something like that.
12 Another option we are also looking at is the 13 possibility of going to a fully titanium condenser. Right rm
(,) 14 now we have titanium tubes but our tube sheet s are not 15 titanium. And the thinking there is that riglt now you havt 16 a limited amount of contaminants in the syster.t. As long as 17 the system remains tight, you can clean out that system and 18 hopefully keep it : lean. But if you have any ingress cf 19 externr41 contaminatts which, of course, would come from the 20 condenser, then yo's could run into essential problems as far 21 as chemistry is concerned. So, engineering right now is 22 looking at those different or,>tions and they are going to be 23 giving management a recommendation in I believe it's another 24 -- end of July. I was going to say another month.
25 Alto, in addition, we also had a recommendation
! Heritage Reporting Corporation p (202) 628-4888
65
(/
U s 1 that we discussed, management discussed last week, as a 2 matter of fact. And that is the amount of on-site inventory, 3 tank inventory for de-mineralized water. And we plan to 4 bring to the joint owners next month a recommendation to 5 build an additional tank. This will help us, if we do have 6 any kind of chemistry excursion and we have to shut down.
7 This will help us in cleaning up the system, flushing the 8 system that much quicker and easier. Usually, when you have i
9 one of the excursions, it might take two or three flushes 10 before you really get the system cleaned up again.
11 And if you had a major excursion like that, .
12 obviously, the polishes would not handle that. You would l
13 have to come down and clean up. So, we are loJhing at all
) 14 those options and the tank as a goal, as far as we are 15 concerned, we have to present it to the joint owners. We 16 feel it's a shorter term. And then in the longer term, we 17 will be looking,at the polishes versus the condenser water 18 boxes.
19 MR. MCCABE: What internal stsps do you have to do 20 between now and the time you autho.ize going above 50 21 percent power to 75 percent plateau?
l 22 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: We have a short meeting that I 23 believe is occurring this afternoon. Then tomorrow morning 24 at 9:00 we have scheduled an MOC meeting, that's the 25 Management Oversight Committee Meeting. And at that I
rm l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
I i
66
(} 1 2
' meeting, Gary and his people will present the final results of the 50 percent plateau testing. I have already heard '
3 some pre 3iminary results. We had an MOC meeting yesterday 4 and we will hear final results after the SALK committee has 5 completed their review.
6 MR. FEIGENBAUM: At that meeting, the 7 self-assessment team who is also currently reviewing the B same test data that the SALK people are will make a 9 presentation as well as far as their feelings about the 10 results of the tests thus far and whether they believe we 11 should go forward.
12 We have received, as Bruce said, a preliminary 13 report, but they have not gone through all the test data as l')
(_/ 14 of this morning. So, that is continuing.
15 MR. MCCABE: I guess we would like feedback on 16 that conclusion as soon as you reach it.
17 MR.' DRAWBRIDGE: Until we have that MOC meeting, e
18 the plant is not going to exceed the 50 percent.
19 MR. WESSMAN: Ted, in your opening remarks, you 20 referred to minimizing the impact of distractions. And I 21 think you made reference to the congressional inquiry in the 22 Northeast Utilities's activity. I wonder if you could 23 expand on that a little bit and give us a flavor of how much 24 an impact there has been, particularly, the congressional 25 inquiries and, you know, what sort of impact that has been.
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-1888 x
1 1
67 :
)
7- 1 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Well, we have taken great
\- 2 measures to make sure that it is not impacting safe power 3 ascension. However, we have had to apply a significant 4 number of people and resources to the continuing questions 5 regarding welding and allegations such as the radio tapes 6 and the INPO reports and the evaluations of the status of .
7 reports that date be.ck to 1983 and 1984 and, of course, the l I
8 weld investigation. Both the official NRC independent ,
I 9 regulatory review team questions as well as questions from 10 congreesional staffers. This has been quite an effort, 11 segregated and separate, but it has been onerous in terms of 12 the time, the amount of overtime and the effort that we have 13 had to apply to it. We would like to be moving towards some
{} 14 15 additional initiatives, programs to move our current organization into operational excellence. And we have 16 cortain commitments, both internally, as well as ko INPO to 17 make certain improvement sin our organization as well as to 18 bring down some of the backlogs that Bill Kane was 19 mentioning before.
20 We think that the resources that we are applying 21 to respond to some of th? )e questions coul6 be at this 22 point, at least, better served in other r.reas. We will 23 always strive to continue to respond to NRC requests 24 thoroughly and completely and as expeditiously as we can, 25 but we do believe there comes at some point a point Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
68
(} 1 2
where the benefits really are diminishing as far as what we are proving in terms of more data and more reviews and more 3 inspections.
4 So, it is getting to the point where we wonder how 5 this is going to come to a close and if it is not going to 6 come to a close and it's going to continue for a period of 7 time, we need to adjust our resources accordingly. And we 8 would like to know that as soon as possible if it is going 9 to be an ongoing investigation without any foreseeable end 10 to it.
11 MR. BROWN: One other impact has been we are 12 always looking at resources available in terms of manpower 13 or dollars or other resources. And to dat., I understand
() 14 that we have expended in excess of $300,000 in preparing 15 responses to the inquiries that have been made on this 16- subject. And that is $300,000 in manpower that could have 17 been probably better spent elsewhere, e
18 MR. WESSMAN: Thank you. Let me follow with one 19 additional question. How about an impact of the Northeast 20 Utilities's activity?
21 MR. BROWN: This is Ed Brown. There was some
< 22 initial impact when Northeast Utilities announced back in 23 the latter part of 1989 its intent to seek authority to be 24 managing agent for the operation of Seabrook, And I think 25 this was felt throughout the entire organization at O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 69 1 New Hampshire Yankee, because it was also coupled with some
(~~}
\_.
2 statements by Northeast Utilities in filings with the j 3 Bankruptcy Court that excluded New Hampshire Yankee people 4 from participation in a special severance pay plan. And I 5 thought that was unfortunate that those occurred.
]
6 We have been successful in getting the joint 7 owners to agree to implement and exact the financially
)
8 equivalent special severance pay plan for the New Hampshire 1
9 Yankee people that applied to Public Service Company of New-10 Hampshire. And I also think that as our employees have 11 become aware that this is a process that is stretching out 12 in time and it is not going to happen tomorrow and it is not 13 right around the corner, that they have been less and less
() 14 concerned with it.
15 There is an interesting phenomenon, also. We have 16 been doing everything we can to keep people aware,-people at 17 New Hampshire Yankee, awww f what is going on with the 18 Northeast proposed merger anc the proposed takeover of 19 operation and have been up front and honest with them. And 20 I think that has paid off in dividends in that within the 21 plant there is essentially no real conc rn about this. In 22 some of the administrative and general areas, whether it'a 23 accounting or data processing or purchasing, or things of 24 that nature, there is a fairly high level of concern because 25 they see themselves as the most vulnerable. But these don't O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
70 1 impact directly on operations.
('^}
w.- ;
2 MR. WESSMAN. Thank you. !
3 MR. GALLO: My name is Robert Gallo with NRC ;
4 Region 1. I just have two questions. One was if there has l 5 been or will be an evaluation by the independent review team I l
6 of the maintenance backlog level. We heard a lot of talk 7 about it. Maybe that was answered before. I didn't quite
]
8 hear the answer if there had been or will be. I j
9 MR. DESMARIS: We have evaluated in the past as I l
10 part of the power ascension test program. And you can see 11 that the numbers of work requests have gone down to the q 12 target level, approximately 750. We will continue to 13 evaluate that as part of the maintenance evaluation, special
() 14 evaluation that we are doing right now.
15 MR. GALLO: The second question is when we first 16 talked about the work control program reevaluation was in 17 progress. I was interested in whether that was being 18 reviewed by the independent review team or what status that 19 was in. I wasn't sure if it was a program that was in place 20 right now or if it is still something that is in the future?
21 The evaluation and then whatever actions come out c r that.
22 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: The independent review team did 23 review it and come up with some recommendations. What I was 24 referring to was an internal plant review to assure 25 consistency throughout all the departments with our
(-
C Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
71
(' 1 configuration control, work control. And that is the review z)' 2 that I was referring to was plant people would take the l 3 input from the independent review team with their i 4 recommendations and do an overall review to make sure the 1 5 program is effective.
6 MR. GALLO: So, that is something that is 7 continuing?
8 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: That is still continuing, yes.
[
9 That has not been completed yet, no.
10 MR. FEIGENBAUM: Basically, the recommendation ,
11 from the independent review team was that you want to take a i
12 look in more depth to see if you hr 3 consistency and 13 whether the various programs you have that make up
() 14 configuration control are properly integrated, vertically 15 and horizontally. And that's the next step that Bruce is 16 going to kick off as a result of the racommendation.
l 17 MR. DRAWBRIDGE: The specific challenges that we 18 had, we think we have those licked. Now, we want to look at 19 it big-picture-wise to assure that we are consistent ,
20 throughout the plant.
I 21 MR. GALLO: Okay, thank you.
22 MR. MARTIN: Okay. Ed, I think we would like to 23 take a break. I want to caucus to make sure that we haven't 24 heard any surprises today and then we will go back on the j 25 record after that. So, at this point, we will take a short l'
<m l Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 l
72
/~T 1 recess. I would like the NRC people to meet right outside
(.)
2 the wall there so that we can make sure there are no 3 surprises.
4 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
5 MR. JOHNSON: Before Mr. Martin makes some 6 remarks, I just want to make sure that we can get a copy of 7 the slides so that we can include them with our meeting 8 report. ,
9 MR. DELOACH: Definitely.
10 MR. MARTIN: Ed, I would like to thank you and 11 your staff for the briefing provided today on the power 12 ascension program, the readiness to continue to operate in 13 your self-assessment. I would also like to thank you for
( 14 your responses to our quentions.
15 The information presented and discussed along with 16 our detailed review of your self-assessment report will .
17 provide a valuable input to our continued assessment of-your 18 self-assessment capability. The conclusions of our review 19 will be documented in an inspection report which we will 20 issue in the future.
21 With regard to the observation and conclusions 22 that your staff presented today, I would like to state that 23 we are in general agreement based upon our independent 24 assessment of your performance. Further, I am not aware of 25 any impediment to your continuation of the power ascension
%) ,
, Heritage Reporting Corporation '
l (202) 628-4888 l
I
73 '
1 program. However, I do admit we have not completed our
}
2 review of your report and we will expedite that process and 3 document our results.
4 As always, if we identify any problems in that 5 review, I can assure you we will promptly share that 6 information with you. ;
7 I note in reviewing your commitments to us that c 8 you plan to provide a report of your self-assessment upon ,
9 the completion of the power ascension program. I would ask 10 that you get that report to us and then set up a meeting to 11 brief us as you have today. That is not in the commitment 12 and I assume that it was something you probably planned, but 13 the words don't say that. So, we would like an opportunity
) 14 after we get a copy of the report and review it in detail to 15 sit down with you again and understand your assessment of 16 that performance. j 17 I have no further questions. Ed, do you have any?
18 MR. BROWN: No, we do not. )
19 MR. FEIGENBAUM: One item. Following our session 20 tomorrow, if you would like a phone call, we will be 21 briefing Noel. Obviously, he will be at our Management 22 Oversight Committee Meeting. If there are any other phone ,
1 23 calls required at that point, let un know. ;
i 24 MR. MARTIN: If you will share them with Noel, 25 that's fine. Okay. Thank you very much. The meeting is l
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f I
- r. <
a 74 j l 1 over.
2 (whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the meeting was 4
i 3 adjourned.)
1 l
l i s
.t l
e O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-- e -
75 j
(^')
(_,/
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2
3 DOCKET NO. -
4 CASE TITLE: Seabrook Station - Open Hearing 5 HEARING DATE: June 19, 1990 l 6 LOCATION: King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 7
8 I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are }
l 9 contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes I 1
10 reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the 11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
12 13
,- - Date: 6/19/90
(,,/ 14' '
15 0} % / *
. SA&'N 16 Offici orter 17 Heritage Reporting Corporation 18 1220 L Street, N.W.
19 washington, D.C. 20005 20 21 22 23 24 25, p
n
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
O Power Ascension T7st Program Startup Test Departhiant 3 Power Ascension Test Program Managar Program Support Reactor insering System Support W Depatment upemsor Manager Staff System Support Department 1 I I I Shift Test Shift Test Shift Tcst ShiftTest Director Director Director Director SHIFT #1 SHIFT #2 SHIFT #3 SHIFT #4 Test Test Test Test Directors Directors Directors Directors
" ~ "
Yankee O
_a ves of sua h se _
bAC/vc/W w/7/cwc6/V
O Power Ascension Test Program TESTS PERFORMED THROUGH 50%
ST Operation alignment of nuclear instrumentation (6)
ST-14.1 Operation alignment of process temperature instrumentation (5)
ST-23 Dynamic automatic steam dump control (1)
ST-24 Automatic rear control (1)
ST-25 Automatic steam generator level control (7)
. ST-26 Thermal power measurement and setpoint data collection (6)
ST-27 Startup adjustments of reactor control system (4)
ST-28 Calibration of steam and feedwater flow instrumentation (6)
ST-29 Core performance evaluation (5)
ST-30 Power coefficient measurement (4)
ST-36 Axil flux difference instrumentation calibration (3)
- more -
o -- "qg; -
O
L
{
O Power Ascension Test Program 4 TESTS PERFORMED THROUGH 50%
(continued)
ST-41 Radiation survey (2) !
ST-42 Water chemistry (4)
ST-43 Process computer (4)
ST-44 Vibration and loose parts monitor (2)
ST-45 Process effluent radiation monitor (2)
ST-46 Ventilation system operability test (2)
ST-52 Thermal expansion ST-33 Shutdown from outside the control room ST-34 Load swing test (4)
ST-48 %rbine-generator startup test (6)
ST-48.1 Drbine torsional test (1) 0 *H7mree Yankee O
l
'! . f l
\.
8' e '
s l
j*, ,
. g L 3 -
V e .
l
)
, i o= l r,
F ,
x e
e' 6: ,
O f>'#
~1!,
Me L'!l:
.mA.
)
o If l'
n g
I
'? : ,
s o' .,
~ t si i
h 4 g
6
(
o lll .
- llf r .aa ,
O ,
TURBINE GENERATOR i FREQUENCIES PREDICTED ACTUAL Pre Modification 26th Harmonic 121.4 Hz 119.9 Hz Post Modification 26th Harmonic 123.4 Hz 122.5 Hz O. 3g.-
1
i<
O UNPLANNED REACTOR TRIPS DURING STARTUP TO 50%
Westinghouse 4 - Loop PWR's ,
PLANT #
I Seabrook 0 A 2 B 3 C 4 D 5 O __ gg:-
?
b
1 L O Power Ascension Test Program TESTS PERFORMED BETWEEN 50% AND COMPLETION ST-13 Operation alignment of nuclear instrumentation (6)
ST-14.1 Operation alignment of process temperature instrumentation (5)
ST-15 Reactor plant system setpoint verifcation (1)
ST-25 Automatic steam generator level control (7)
ST-25.1 Feedwater pump capacity (1)
ST-26 Thermal power measurement and setpoint data c -
(6)
ST-27 Startup adjustments of reactor control system (4) l ST-28 Calibration of steam and feedwater flow instrumentation (6)
ST-29 Core performance evaluation (5)
ST-30 Power coefficient measurement (4)
ST-34 Load swing test (4)
ST-36 Axil flux difference instrumentation calibration (3)
ST-37 Steam generator moisture carryover test (1)
ST-40 NSSS acceptance test (1)
- more -
l O a-
"W E"-
O
v 1 I
.O Power Ascension Test Program TESTS PERFORMED BETWEEN 50% AND COMPLETION (continued) i ST-41 Radiation survey (2)
ST-42 Water chemistry (4)
ST-43 Process computer (4)
ST-44 Vibration and loose parts monitor (2) -
ST-45 Process effluent radiation monitor (2)
ST-46 Ventilation system operability test (2)
ST-48 Turbine-generator startup test (6)
ST-51 Power ascension dynamic vibration test ST-52 Thermalexpansion (5)
ST-56 Piping vibration test (1)
ST-57 Drain out approach (1)
ST-22 Natural circulation test -
ST-35 Large load reduction (2)
ST-38 Unit trip from 100% power (1)
ST-39 Loss of offsite power (1)
New Hampshire-Yankee i
O L
POWER ASCENSION TEST SCHEDULE POWER LEVEL N ,RMY
, A n-w d i
80 -
, ,,y w
40 T$
r g 20
=
0 ' )
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 DAYS i.p,-i.
N 5.YsNNintsevWmanaoE"
-. app *roveYu reIqE
.h _, New Hampshire Yankee r
m-
O Seabrook Station WORK REQUEST BACKLOG 1,000 -
1,500 -
- 1,400--
,. i.a00 --
g 1,200
{ 1,100 1'000 i
I
- 900
"__ymv.._..
W .w ... _ .. v
.00 ~ n g ,
i 800 5 000 g 4m ,
2 '
300-200 100 0 , ,, , .. , , ,, ,, ,,
- - N .O m m - -
E E 8 - 3 - 5 h E $ $ 6 1989-1990 O- " * ~ New Hampshire-
' Yankee O
}
i et ,
Self Assessment Team AREAS OF EVALUATION
- 1. Power ascension
- 2. Operations !
- 3. Maintenance and work control- I
- 4. Testing and surveillance !
- 5. Radiation protection, chemistry and ,
radioactive waste
- 6. Training 7.- Quality programs ;
- 8. Engineering and technical support ;
- 9. Management effectiveness !
O .,
in"eT O
1 l
l O
Self AssessmentTeam ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES I
- 1. Organizationalinterfaces and management effectiveness
- 2. Plant configuration control
- 3. Program and procedural adequacy and compliance l
- 4. Communications and teamwork
- 5. Quality program effectiveness
- 6. Timeliness and adequacy of support of s'.ation activities
- 7. Training program adequacy and effectiveness
- 8. Timeliness and adequacy of corrective action l reporting and follow-through O -- "qg -
I
.O
i O ,
Self Assessment Team SPECIAL EVALUATIONS L 9 NHY radio communications system e April 4,1990 turbine trip I
- Turbine impulse pressure transmitter PT-506 configuration control ;
9 Radiation data management system I e Switchyard grounding
- Allegations related to electrical manholes
- Confirmatory action letter corrective action plan closure O .- igg -
F .
Q' R
- df
- p p &lMQ W u -. +Mh ^~b :w + . , ? h ;L_ :b-1!: x , .r r .
qr , f.
+, s4-. .y.k.lqvG q;?
n-(
4 'g,.. ck r a y T y 4 C W_u.:; W Q , &f__O U }h m '4'g.!'@V:b i% ')t
- r. g r g !^ x
+nf 1.
M^Q h n 14 '-dy y4 .:-Q *s WQ a y' n g f%mke {%'^@. 43 _ , . ,
D *J 'y; g r }W_ '
TD :an h @m ' s i -
9 ;n^
.n v' is w.2 h N.yr &.:>M - <,a & ' h:%n -W%4n i,L% m im'y e
Mt t
nm - p -
fmn p$
< ~
(y:giMn k; Ape "n%w %eN 'M,3.p i 4 Y
%;W &,p-m . yn ';9Wi ns s
< mf . ~4 v i- 3 Wm ' wn v4 v" wt+ - '
- 4 *M M' . "= * -+v )
MM s ;
WE %5 * ~ %
hv p? hLzS. %rL&. 4 r 'EC g
' i " , U S * # '* , ~ ' ' \ 'r:--i 's
,; ; + i % ,i;;&i ?! 4 Q.p&' o ': f
%gr@& p sq D m rmw lu? <
> + ,; - % v p .' c wuu m_ w %, s e.?a,' b -
s,-l,',-.w %n m,i-4
- r. m.<s.hk .%v s .u z e g . . . n u*
,1, s u;V wrw e %sa' szs'<Y4 c , . .
- m. . a r .
e-- ~ " -
m .u.--I' _~n , w~,
h
- " +- '6 -m.; f'M M 1- k i '
4 .'r $ 't...- >-
o
'(L ' $-~ 42f4 j
u A 'h m' -M -;
-.q p( ff a w%. :t -(1.M' v h f 's%. ji 'w3 w' .-
}JC':, 7-- .'d' ' A c-l '^ /u* a.Q. ^{ - . , - /,- ' ' -:A< r.O E I. > 4 y:n w w@:swng>+;wf' _Jtoy'k m;z ~
> -~
gt im '
~.n }v 'm< , &m<
- q" s
- L ;"
^ i a,o pH Q..:qJga-#r Ultr.- gt y x- WW;:)yp t ; f.. ~ >\
n--.
< r , , afqq n
i t, , ,-~-- - s y q, ~ uf ,' + dm.y. ' t y u-st
- s++t
W +-e. + 1>
s y c:m- r J
8 .
- +8 i s
+.a wt s
- y m - ~g -aL
- 3 u ,a -
n r :M M.e;gs M7 v w;mm:-w N# -- uM:m tSj N YO-lc " ' + t Ofb ~
\; '
$$ N et(>
y -
4sV x k; N4
- f-# m.
, ._f-
.y p ,
-; g.,
~.
9%m.p"t V
- m- c .w My"
I 1 m
1 F
< a t.
-d;
- ^(ei
_. ,, 4:
N. - f. #.m-M Y ~J
' ' , - 4*-w T'
$ _jj ,
.,(
, -^
^'
[ k ~.. , ,1 g o wc m'" r . 4 1 ,
mfs.'r- ghy a' M g. y ~ ,y -n...*
1 > t e se] yhaw'd3( . f , .
W H. 4 s yPy 1 i
' - t
' z b.
r s
, +,
c"U [ m A gh_,m . n. , ~
- -- + s
+
ws i 4 4
<A,-
mkw@m m + i e ,-
!u .s, : n F u
. .; r.e. . , , j c
> -.' w n._.. .%^e . . *. .n
%; W 3 e x3 '
[.yg3 ~ hcn-J .a ;?w e - -
r x s n , 1 n
- ~
t t m:- e . ; ,. W",- g 1
...; +Ae 3
~: -
g] X-- p::i fi p ,f.1 x E - s p&%Q-" q- q".,
s T 71 (;-,
QW u:f .A '
- ,u \ ,. ,t
- : . . <
a' "V t
~.v.,
J,d MM +m +
n_
. .v
- ..p
>- Y %i- 5 n 'e
- 6.
- e e r, .
i
- yc .. @< -
M. e,i%a g' 'M.d m. M f ' 'F m
k'O *3 ry%? Tfi g 5 __3 $ r' g-g-, ','
Nh i
- p m .wMk 4
,m-:
i . _ _ ,, t ; C* - i -
' v;. ' ' ' ,2 3 i'D/ w w'j o
x x > <
-m 4 > #1 s m a , m' "
bPA 4 g W-g,q.t.gere g e (-s g ,+ .
,..,ngt.c r y rts= -
e ' r n y.9 a-,W p -
w c n . gW y.rr , a s 1
,, 4 .h MgM U W9 yn V;f 1! - u + 1 ra. ;I n r c.,- , v ,
'M'is v - - t W :~ t 5
3 3 ,.I,-+- .*
~
i x s , r . mi 1 - - , , ,
- m '.-
d$f y m.c&' : '
- w.-u ,drm + t m.mn- 1 ma, 6
- n r, t -.-p.3,, -n
-, -R &, a :
, . u.,; -;.
- 3h_ '
T + T E-J g f 3" k JhWy ' s..) 3' .sa : ~ * %"
u3 - >a :
i W. I p, -
O c4 ,9 r' zw f p p.V. e(y w&p
~m :
y_. = > :w.~ i 4 8 +
t g ),<
.. < 1 ct. r
+ -n
, s
-s.3>w w-
,m pa wg.g%:w'D P y: ., , . c .-m ~d - mb 14_
~
-F-'- S @d . ,'" '
-- 4 -
q$qtNe N
e . +1t e::--
e.gp-r t
+ .s t
n
,y 3
t 4W
- .w t .
4 r : - s ! ,But:
.e, i t i g.n, )
s-ws . pyro a .'
, a
' g?q 0 ; W. 2 Mu , s r Jp< , 1
- J. f.;'L' e
(;Wg i.?:
, wn 4wfuWc yy FHe, -p.-r 9 ;-
- 1
.1 s n.
7 A, Jq. , _
8
_ _ f d -
p
- 8. _ y 1fd' r [,f'-
+
~
+ + ' '
LuyMqw. M. L:#,t. % Tr.? C. - &m mb;.aV- ,.,>; c. L .~ .
9 e.. [ rl I Ls b ' I.
q%em[u ,o ##I b < . .
m
..y , w; pt.gtn + ,' <' N; 9 m ;y- -
m
- p 6 a' S r 9
1N '
w
=v
,N5
- i,,
u sw M.
}
f;, "j.g(. a'_ .[ h-_[ h ! , --
$ g 1 ,.L.- -
, n 1
'. , ' - 8 i
- :" r p; i
.a,; : ;: k:', 't g
r
, e .
I ?/. z.
2 i yv t, s 1 . I fL W., m
. . t ! . v' ivW(?'
..c c
" %, ?
C.: n . :h .
wm.-
S: !
i s
,- -mb.
t ;
? . ). -
s n!N 1f - > m s3 j p'..d,-S Yf g I
J t.'-r 'i.ck y
. .f, N ! I ne 34q h.gg ugi m c t i .
g h =5.r'f... y _ . u.. , a p. sa a 4
1 4 4 , ,
- y. 2ch>" ,
',gi,. _(, ' b d
m' m'.
g an
'1
- g. mv'
~ ?- c*l aje
- a ,..' k i a_F. 7 Q Vh -; j b 4L %
--g-g
d,i ft '
f s, .. -?,"l'.
N$$ N p.$ i-d'lti i V
,z 4_ e if, . * * " i' ;p?$ T) 21 lM#fm fiQ i
- y. '
fY: , e a f ,
Y w Vf " .
- y. fQ"m g i u.w i v.Q .m 4-
- m. q p u U.A 4M.w.
ja;.-
5 C.',3.
4 I I f' , . .;
-O f
p n i 4
-$ 3 2 *
- d g. 7? '.- wr 8 t u*-p\ ;- g'* *q' 1 ;3q '
.ge -
l u ? ( - w;-
_ } '. s y2 ~ s.e.D .f. .c,) ,
- pjh a :-
e'..-
-s e , ,. e t.v 5
.c 64.: g r i. a
. . s _ ,- , ..,
. ~,: , p h ' ' #
+
- w =k { 'l' c' eg, y.
' w' . y m' * ~ , % +? ? . ,
y .NE
,)
q /'
u, , ,,.,,4 y
M J,e-M .. p n,
,y .
4 "} .
i ; j m* >
s
= -
[
J. l
- x. t.
.s v J'-- _* - n' L;-
J2 l f.' . J i- M l.I, },, *j d' / i p d
~,.}5., g .,.*.- 3 gir = . ,
, k'y$ -7 f f. D. .o' . a m, s L 4 3 ,' -
t 3 *;. ; J';[; ,,1 i y-Nh M u 1a 1 , r E ';d y 4 N - *
.:=3 g i f *,$ ~
W.ya)a
+.
.,,i<
1qq t
+g ?
,e ir c;g- .[m ' .g,
_-1--
~
,. + ?~p,l 4
o
,- w.. .
1
~','.4 %
[
93.?,- _y_. s S y' ~ o,
_(
Nb$ , M " t s ss t
~~p.
t
<+,
7
," -N }% , ! M,.
- b'in(pS)V.
{'r,j E
t~ j' ' ~
L ,. ,
t ;ej ? , Jg 4 '
?;. t , s t *r VA' t , b
K/8f g -Q'. , t
- t 2
-;;, e
( s
_4 ,
1 4
7d- ]. 's , v A yE g r@. w> 4 m -
e l- w 4 ;P -
g gp> <
m ,. , so.. - a x k h s p ;u-4-r P.' T ' t.3 ;*c.
aO m . .
}
4
'y t -3_ . .--
, (u. 4 s v- '
as e. 4 a -: g u
- q ' . .
,l' Il. ' --
e 'm 3 +nf..,,-m,qi_* , , . i+:
. . 'q "1
. [$
i t
'f I' 4 --. -f [1
.,.-i.g}
y f 6h 3 0 NW '. . '$ ' l ; l jp% W4O. , ",' ' ,
sh.
tul.4:? h$.m '.x wt s's
- c. n . L.y-( , -
N: . - > ,
7 m *
- [ '
9, p.! ,
M^
MW s, . , . y'1j.:_'
1 j t g- .i
-g.
- , 3 yr
-s*-
r L-
.W
&h.
3 i
AX d.xy.s;4;y : n, (2
- i ,
1
>r
',' ( g- >
?. e
'k' +1')
' M D . #. ,- ,
h.- y. 1 4 '.
vf .q ,"aN .b'k ' '
.b l.
~g g
% w -;,_.a_
y-( ; , c, \
s 4 'b. k N' iyye
,3g9 g,
.m s -
- ".--4jQ., -d 4; - d, a
< v 4
' ' , - . h f ',
,t-.--
c Q .9, U' tW:pwr 4 * '
u ,
' Wf l ;;&kUd ?., , o - '
g&jg;f ' Au ' . f:,_
s, sp ,t
- m 's :rt 'he t a{w.uA=?
i i ur 7, m i .'h. , -c b 47$, ty t' '
1
'M._ h'.
l, v
- g. $N ?_i t 7,'_
t'
- e. r.
i.<
l',v.': 4 3
,3 i;,g ,kk~v,
^'
A< ,w s b h*b g + ' .
4
- l'-
.',1,.-k{.',[
I, '
'1 .
4d' i - i 5' . N. :
g[f 'f S ' -.
g a
-- 1p -'
-,. t' s
, i .]
M =s.,
y.l~'Q" s h3u;
, 1.1
- g. , s -
mn' , , ~
zs; q mn ,d. ;
,i
. . . . (
D k -
,i #i6m .1
- n r;t ..s 3
- 7._x._- ,.
I (--
o b'((1,- i .
( ! .f n.
t
.a-m --
~w , # .-
I 1-_
_g t u r p< <c ( a_ - s v.e ,+ ,
- i
-V-, . } r N p, ,J f N W: - 1 .j edu * ' 'g ! Q x.M ; y ..'.
irhjM W d t.?