ML17138B056
| ML17138B056 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi, Susquehanna, LaSalle, Zimmer, Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1980 |
| From: | Kintner L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.097, RTR-REGGD-1.097 NUDOCS 8002070011 | |
| Download: ML17138B056 (26) | |
Text
gpo AEoo (4
C~
~o s %~
g)
I 0
++**+
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR R EG ULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket Nos:
50-358, 50-322, 50-373, 50-PT4, and 50-387 2'f/
APPLICANTS:
Cincinnati Gas 8 Electric Company Long Island Lighting Company Commonwealth Edison Company Detroit Edison Company Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company FACILITIES:
Eimmer 1, Shoreham 1, LaSalle 1, Fermi 2, Susquehanna 1
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF DECEMBER 'l4, 1979 MEETING TO DISCUSS WITH NEAR-TERM BWR OL APPLICANTS REVISION 2 TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97, "INSTRUMENTATION FOR LIGHT-WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS TO ASSESS PLANT AND ENVIRONS CONDITIONS DURING AND FOLLOWING AN ACCIDENT Mr. V. Benaroya summarized the development of Regulatory Guide 1.97 to date and plans for revising it.
The guide was first issued in December 1975 with general recommendations for instrumentation in new plants.
Generic Task A-34 was initiated in 1977 to develop plans for implementation in nearly completed and operating plants.
The Three Mile Island accident demonstrated that instru-mentation in operating plants was inadequate to effectively assess plant conditions and accurately determine potential and actual offsite releases of radioactive materials.
In July 1979, the nuclear indistry started to develop a standard, ANS-4.5 "Functiona1 Requirements for Accident Monitoring in a Nuclear Power Generation Station" which considers the Three Mile Island accident and describes general requirements for instrumentation needed by a control room operator to bring the plant to a stable condition.
Draft 4 of ANS 4.5 was issued in November 1979.*
Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.97, issued for comment in December 1979,**
endorses a large part of Draft 4 of ANS 4.5 and extends the scope to include information intended to be useful to the licensee for determining actions necessary to protect the public.
Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.97 also extends the scope of ANS 4.5 to include design criteria and range for specified instrumentation.
The specific instrumentation is intended to be compatible with the objective of assuring operability of this instrumentation by December 1981 in all plants operated after that date.
- Copies may e o tained from the American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington
- Avenue, La Grange Park, Illinois 60525.
- Copies may be obtained from the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.
C. 20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Technical Information and Document Control.
oooo>>o,
I I rrtMPg
h I,
1
The purpose of the December 14, 1979 meeting was to obtain information regarding difficulties associated with implementation of Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.97 percieved by applicants for licenses to operate BWR plants that will be completed in 1980.
A similar meeting was held December 13, 1979 with applicants for near-term PWR plant operating licenses.
Similar meetings will be held with licensees of operating plants in February 1980.
The results of. these meetings will be used to develop lists of design criteria and instruments, for plants under construction and operating plants, similar to Tables 1,
2 and 3 in Regulatory Guide 1.97 that were developed for new plants.
A list of attendees at the December 14 meeting is enclosed.
Mr. Polanski (Commonwealth Edison Company) sumamrized some of the difficulties seen by BWR applicants with implementation of Tables 1
and 3 in Regulatory Guide 1.97.
(1) The control room space was designed for a particular instrument..display and it will be difficult to add many displays of instruments to follow an.'ccident and achieve an arrangement that is good for operator use during both operation and accidents.
(2) It will be more difficult to achieve diversity of instruments than redundancy of one type of instrument.
(3) Environmental and seismic qualification to meet latest regulatory guides may be difficult because purchased or installed instruments have been qualified to earlier guides and standards.
For example, qualification of instruments has been made for 120 days following an accident; therefore, a requirement to qualify for 200 days may be difficult and expensive to meet.
(4) There may be insufficient capacity of emergency power supplies to handle all the additional accident monitoring instruments.
(5) Capability for periodic tests during operation may not be easily achieved for purchased or installed equipment.
(6) The cost of upgrading certain instrumentation to the sfaety criteria of Table 1 of the guide will be high (e.g., control rod position, neutron flux, primary containment isolation valve position, residual heat removal system flow, status of non-class-IE power supplies and systems).
The Fermi 2 plant does not have an uniterruptible bus to use for Class IE power as required for Types B
8 C instruments.
The staff said that arrangement of displays for accident monitoring instruments in the cbntrol room will be considered by the staff separately, as part of the draft Action Plan (Memorandum from Denton to Commissioners, December 11, 1979).
Task C. 1 requires a review by the licensee of the control room control and display panels, taking into consideration requirements for instruments in Regulatory Guide 1.97.
Staff will evaluate these proposed control room layouts on a case-by-case basis.
The staff said that exemptions to the criteria of Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.97 would be considered on each plant as necessary.
If instrumenta-tion has been reviewed and accepted for safety functions other than accident monitoring, it is likely that it will be acceptable for the accident monitoring function also.
Each applicant should describe instrumentation that does not meet the criteria and its qualification tests, and show, by analysis or addi-tional tests, that it can perform the intended accident function specified in Regulatory Guide 1.97 Table 3.
In response to a question from a Detroit Edison Company representative, Mr. Bena'roya said that the comments for the Fermi 2 plant, which has.a Mark I containment, will be considered together with comments on operating plants having Mark I containments.
The remainder of the near-term BWR plants have a Mark II containment and will be considered as a separate group in determining permissible exemptions to the instruments identified in Table 3 of Revision 2
Table 3 was developed for Mark III BWR containments.
The applicants requested more specificity regarding the bases and reasons for selecting specific variables,
- ranges, and design criteria so that they could better provide instrumentation to meet the intended purpose.
Mr. Benaroya said that the criteria were as specific as deemed possible for applicability to a number of diverse designs.
- However, he welcomes informal telephone calls or visits from individual applicants or their representatives if questions arise regarding intent of specific criteria in Regulatory Guide 1.97 or applicability of instruments that are already purchased or installed.
The following are comments made on specific measurements listed in Table 3
of Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1
~ 97 issued December 1979.
(1)
Core Exit Tem erature - Applicants said that the redundant, safety grade water eve instruments on the reactor vessel should be sufficient to detect a decrease in water level below a level that would severely damage the core.
Inclusion of core thermocouples to make meaningful measurements of superheated steam temperature in a degraded cooling situation is believed impractical.
A thermocouple located at the end of each fixed incore ion chamber string would measure water saturation temperature because these instrument probes are run in spaces between fuel assembly boxes and would see only flow from the core inlet plenum that bypasses the fuel assembly.
The staff said its study showed that such thermocouples would measure superheated steam conditions in the event water level dropped below the top of the core.
'They noted that the lowest tap for the reactor vessel water level instruments was above the top of the core so that water level could not be measured if it dropped below the top of the core.
Staff said this item was discussed at great length with General Electric Company; however, it would arrange a meeting with Analysis Branch or other appropriate staff to discuss its study if desired.
(2)
Reactor Coolant S stem Pressure
- The piping for the pressure instrument is not capable of withstanding the upper limit of the range (2000 psig).
J i
~ '
(3)
(4)
Coolant Level in the Reactor
- The lowest tap for water level instruments is about one foot above the top of the core and the upper tap is at the level of the steam nozzles; therefore, it does not meet the lower limit of the specified range (bottom of core support plate).
Staff said the available range may be satisfactory, provided other measurements, such as core exit temperature, are available to determine the adequacy of actions taken to cool the core should the water level drop below the top of the core.
Hain Steamline Isolation Valves'eaka e Control S stem Pressure
- Staff said that parameters ot er than pressure could be measured to determine that the leakage control system was functioning properly when containment isolation was required due to a severely damaged core.
Radiation Level in Coolant - This should be an on-line continuous measurement per aps on a
sma ypass line) during and following the accident.
It should not. be isolated with the start of the accident.
For this reason, the steam line monitor is not acceptable for this function.
Containment and Dr ell H dro en Concentration - Applicant said that measure-ment of concentration a ove 10 is not necessary because a sample can be drawn for laboratory analysis if the content is above 10K.
Su ression Pool Water Level - Staff said the present range of water level on existing Har II p ants (lowest suction line to five feet above normal level) may be acceptable.
Applicant said the reference to Section 6.3.3 is incorrect because it describes drywell sump level measurement
- not suppression pool level.
Hi h
Ran e Containment Area Radiation - Staff said an inst~ument qualified for use in drywell and having the specified range (1 to 10 R/hr) is commercially available (General Atomic and Victoreen).
It is possible that withdrawing a sample out of containment may be acceptable; the rationale and schedule for development, installation, and placing in service of alternate
- systems, such as this should be provided for our review.
(g)
(10)
Hain F'eedwater Flow - Staff agreed with applicants that the power supply for the instrument could logically be the same as that for the pump; therfore it may not need to be on emergency
- power, as required for a Type E instrument.
v Steam Flow to Reactor Core Isolation Coolin S stem - Staff agreed that measurement of steam pressure may be an acceptable alter~ative to verify that adequate steam is available for the system.
Service Coolin Water Flow and Tem erature - These two quantities are required to be measured for all heat exchangers used for shutdown that are cooled by service water.
E (12)
Flow and Tem erature in Ultimate Heat Sink Loo
- These quantities are required to be measured for man-made, small ultimate heat sinks that require makeup after 30 days (cooling tower basins, cooling ponds).
(13)
Sum Level in S aces of E ui ment Re uired for Safet
- If the sump can overflow in the event of equipment failure abnormal relief valve discharge, failed pump seal, failed pipe), water level in the room should be measured up to the level at which functioning of safety equipment would be degraded.
(14)
Emer enc Ventilation Dam er Positions
- Only automatically operated dampers needed be instrumented to display position.
(15)
Tem erature of S ace in Vicinit of E ui ment Re uired for Safet
- The range for BWR s in Table 3 has a typographical error.
Th~ upper limit of the range should be the same as for PWR's in Table 2 (180 ).
Also the design criteria should be the same for.'BMR'ms for PWR's (Type D).
(16)
Radiation Ex osure Rates - Applicynt commented that hand-held monitors with an upper limit on t e range of 10~ R/hr should be adequate to determine whether access is po~sible; therefore, permanently installed monitors with an upper limit of 10 R/hr were not necessary.
Staff responded that use of hand held monitors to assess radiation in areas where access is known to be required to service equipment is an unnecessary exposure of plant personnel.
(17)
Containment Exhaust Vent and Standb Gas Treatment S stem Vent - Staff said the lower limit of the range 10-uCi/cc is needed to be able to detect all potential isotopes.
(18)
Effluent Radioactivit
- Hi h
Ran e Radiohalo ens and Particulates
- The parenthetical phrase under Range should read permanently installed "samplers" not "monitors."
(19)
Environs Radioactivit
- Ex osure Rate - These monitors should be located on the plant site - i.e., within p ant boundaries.
(20)
Post Accident Anal sis Ca abi lit on Site) - The capability to measure chloride in containment water may be added to the list.
The staff recommended that plant specific comments on Tables 1
and 3 be provided on the docket by each applicant; and that generic comments applicable to several plants be provided by a representative of the utilities.
Plant specific comments should describe instruments proposed for operation in that plant that are different from those required by Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.97, issued for comment in December 1979.
Alternate designs or design requirements should be justified either on the basis of capability to meet the intent of the guide or on the basis of excessive cost for the potential benefit derived.
In the latter case, only realistic cost estimates will be considered.
Plant specific comments on backfitting should be provided by January 15, 1980 to be considered for incorporation into the effective guide to be issued in May 1980.
Generic
- comments, which are expected to be fewer in number, will be considered for incorporation into the effective guide if they are received within the 60-day comment period ending in February 1980.
L. L. Kintner, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No.
1 Division of.Project Management
Enclosure:
List of Attendees CC:
See next page
ENCLOSURE MEETING ON 12/14/79 RECiULATORY GUIDE 1.97 NRC C.
Woodhead R. Paolino A. Bournia L. Soffer J.
F. Stolz N. Wilson Shou-Nien Hou I. A. Peltier P.
G. Stoddart A. S. Hintze J.
D. Buchanan 0.
H. Harens, Jr.
L. L. Kintner V. Benaroya P.
A. Barrett Sar ent 8 Lund WPPSS G.
W. Brastad Bechtel J.
C. Catlin, Jr.
E. Connell, III G.
H. Stolz ACRS J.
G. Stampelos CPL -
BWR Owners G
D.
B. Waters Penns lvania Power 5 Li ht W.
E. Barberich J.
A. Bartos R. A. Schwan Detroit Edison L. E.
Schuerman L.
F.
Wooden G.
W. Bethke L. Mankani CG8E Co.
0.
L. Erickson William P.
Cooper R.
E. Cotta Commonwealth Edison Co.
Xavier Polanski Laura Fitzpatrick Charles W. Schroeder Louis 0.
DelGeorge D. L. Peoples Stone 5 Webster T.
M. Jacob G.
F.
Dawe Lon Island Li htin Co.
J.
P. Morin Jack A. Notaro General Electric Com an A.
N. Tschaeche E.
P.
Stroupe Elder Wester C.
M. Johnson R.
D. Bauerle
0
Mr. Earl A. Borgmann Vice President
- Engineering The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company P.
0.
Box 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201
~ >>
JAN Z1 1980 CC:
Troy B. Conner, Jr.,
Esq.
- Conner, hloore 8 Corber 1747 Pennsylvania
- Avenue, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
20006 Mr. William J.
Moran General Counsel The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company P. 0.
Box 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Mr. William G. Porter, Jr.
- Porter, Stanley, Arthur and Platt 37 West Broad Street
- Columbus, Ohio 43215 David B. Fankhauser, PhD 3569 Nine Mile Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45230 Dr. Frank F.
Hooner School of Natural Resources University of michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 hlr. Stephen Schumacher Miami Valley Power Project P.
0.
Box 252
- Dayton, Ohio 45401 t1s.
Aug us ta Pri nce, Cha'i rperson 601 Stanley Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 h1r. Steven G. Smith, Manaqer
~ Engineering E Project Control The Dayton Power and LIght Company P.
0.
Box 1247
- Dayton, Ohio 45401 J.
Robert Newlin, Counsel The Dayton Power and Light Company P.
0.
Box 1247
- Dayton, Ohio 45401 Mr. James D. Flynn
- Manager, Licensing Environmental Affairs The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company P.
0.
Box 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Mr. J.
P.
Fenstermaker Senior Vice President-Operations Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company 215 North Front Street
- Columbus, Ohio 43215 David Ma~tin, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General 209 St. Clair Street First Floor Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
/
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety 8 Licensing Board Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1'ashington, D,
C.
20555 h1r.
Glenn 0. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing
'oard Panel U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmissio>>
Washington, D.
C.
20555 Leah S.
Kosik, Esq.
3454 Cornell Place Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 W. Peter Hei le, Esq.
Assistant City Solicitor Room 214, City Hall Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 Atomic Safety and Licensinq Board Panel U,
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ltashington, D.
C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensinq Appeal Board U.
S.
'nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DE C.
20555 Res i dent Inspector/Zimmer U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.
0.
Box 58 New Richmond, Ohio 45157
Long Island Lighting Company ccs:
Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Blau and Cohn, P.C.
21? Newbridge Road Hicksvilie, New York 11801 Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.
Deputy Commissioner and Counsel New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Energy Research Group, Inc.
400-1 Totten Pond Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Irving Like, Esq.
Reilly, Like and Schnieder 200 West Main Street
- Babylon, New York 11702 J.
P. Novarro Project Manager Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P. 0.
Box 618 Wading River, New York 11792 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Hunton
& Williams P. 0.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Garner
& Shapiro 9 East 40th Street New York, New York 10016 Edward J. Walsh, Esq.
General Attorney Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road
- Mineola, New York 11501 Resident Inspector/Shoreham NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 8 Rocky Point, New York 11778 Mr. Andrew W. Wofford Vice President Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801
ccs (continued)
Honorable Peter Cohalan Suffolk County Executive County Executive/Legislative Building Veteran's Hemorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney County Execut i velLegi s 1 at i ve Bui 1 ding Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 JA" -"4 19SO
i~tr.
D. Louis Peoples Director of Nuclear Licensing Cormonwealth Edison Company P.
0.
Sox 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 cc:
Richard E. Powell, Esq.'sham, Lincoln 5 Beale One First National, Plaza 2400
.Chicago, Illinois 60670 Dean Hansell, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General State of Illinois 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Hr. Roger Walker, Resident Inspector
.U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.
0.
8ox 737 Streator, Illinois 61364 JAN 2 e!og0
0
Or-Wayne H. Jens IA" ~ 4 '300 Or.
Wayne H. Jens.
Assistant Vice President Engineering 8 Construction Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. Jeffrey A. Alson 772 Green Street, Building 4 Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197 David E. Howell, Esq.
21916 John R
Hazel Park, Michigan 48030 CC:
Eugune B. Thomas, Jr.,
Esq.
- LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby 8 MacRae 1333 New Hampshire
- Avenue, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Peter A. Marquardt, Esq.
Co-Counsel The Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. William J.
Fahrner Project Manager - Fermi 2
The Detroit Edison Company
-2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. Larry E.
Schuerman Licensing Engineer - Fermi 2
Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit Michigan 48226 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety 8 Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Dr. David R. Schink Department of Oceanography Texas A 5 M University College Station, Texas 77840 Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Atomic Safety 5 Licensing Board Panel U ~
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Mrs, Martha Drake 230 Fairview
~etoskey, Michiqan 49770
Mr. Norman W. Curtis Vice President
- Engineering and Construction Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al 1 entown, Pennsyl vani a 18101 JAN 2 ct 5<~)
cc:
Mr. Earle fl. Mead Project Engineer ing Manager Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al 1 entown, Pennsyl vani a 18101 Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts 5
Trowbri dge 1800 M Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. William E. Barberich, Nuclear Licensing Group Supervi sor Pennsylvania Powe!
6 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsyl vania 18101 Edward M. Nage'l, Esquire General Counsel and Secretary Pennsylvania Pow<<r 8 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al 1 entown, Pennsyl vani a 18101 Bryan Snapp, Esq.
Pennsyl vani a Power 8 Light Company 901 Hamilton Street Al I entown, Pennsyl vani a 18101 Robert Y. Gal 1 o Resident Inspector P. 0.
Box 52 Shickshinny, Pennsylvania 18655 Susquehanna Environmental Advocates c/o Gerald Schultz, Esq.
500 South River St! eet Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702 John L. Anderson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Union Carbide Corporation Bldg. 3500, P. 0.
Box X
Oak Ridge, Ten>>essee
'37830 Mr. Robert J. Shovlin
. Project Manager Pennsylvania Power and Light Co.
2 North Ninth Street Al 1 ento',
Pennsyl vani a 18 101 fiati as F. Travi eso-Di az, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts 8
Trowbri dge 1800 M Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Co-Director Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16801 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources Cn!!mionwealth of Pennsyl vania P. 0.
Box 2063
)larrisburg, PA 17120 Ms. Colleen Marsh Box 53QA, RDP4 Mountain Top, PA 18707 Mrs, Irene Lemanowicz, Chairnerson 1'he Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers P. 0.
Box 377 RD//1 Ber i,'1 c!,.
!'-A
'l8503
JAN 24 1980 cc:
Mr.
P. Higgins Atomic Industrial Forum 12th Floor 7101 Wisconsin Avenue
- Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Mr.
R.
H. Leyse NSAC - Washington Office Electric Power Research Institute 1800 Massachusetts
- Avenue, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036
MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION LWR-l~
~D>et Fi1e WD NRC PDR Local PDR T!C NRR Reading LWR 1 File (2)
H. Denton E.
G.
Case H. Berkow D.
Ross D. Vassallo J. Stolz R.
Baer
- 0. Parr L. Rubenstein S.
Varga C.
Heltemes L, Crocker B. Kirschner F. Williams R. Mattson R.
DeYoung Project Manager
- Attorney, ELP E. HyltonC' IE (3)
ACRS (16)
R. Denise C.
Woodhead R. Paolino A. Bournia L. Soffer J.
Wilson S.
N.
Hou I. Peltier P. Stoddart A. Hintze J.
Buchanan H. Harens, Jr, L. L. Kintner V. Benaroya P. Barrett M. Service M. Rushbrook ~)
J.
Lee J.
G. Stampelos JAN
!. i%0 NRC Participants Appropriate IE Regional Offices IE Region I IE Region II IE Region III IE Region IV IE Region V
LWR P3 File (2)
LWR 84 File (1 Caseload Forecast Panel Meetin s Onl J. Rothfleisch T. Abell G. Matthews W. Lovelace S.
Boyd H.
Berkow L. Schaub Trip Participants
1IAw p QW