ML17255A715
| ML17255A715 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1984 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2151, NUDOCS 8403280335 | |
| Download: ML17255A715 (23) | |
Text
r
~
~ ~
l +
gC:
j i f ISSUE DATE: February 10, 1984 CERTIFIED COPY Pggs-Pld/
MINUTES OF THE ADRE S BCOIIIII'lIEE NEETIM IIN~II.
INMA
'ASHINGTON, D. C.
NOVEHBER 16, 1983 The ACRS Subcommittee on R.
E. Ginna held a meeting on November 16, 1983 in Room 1046, 1717 K St. N., Washington, D. C.
The purpose of the meeting was to review the application of Rochester Gas 5 Electric Corporation to convert its Provisional Operating License (POL) to a Full-Term Operating License (FTOL) for Ginna 'and to review NUREG-0821 and Supplement 1 thereto regarding the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) for Ginna.
t The entire meeting was open to the public.
Notice of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on Friday, October 28, 1983.
A copy of this notice is included as Attachment A.
A list of attendees for this meeting is included as Attachment B, the schedule for the meeting is included as Attachment C,
and a list of all reference material for this meeting (including slides and documents provided to the Subcommittee at the meeting) is included as Attachment D.
Attachment E is NRR's current schedule for converting the remaining POLs to FTOLs.
A complete set of handouts has been
.included in the ACRS files.
There were no oral or written statements made by members of the public.
The Designated Federal Employee for this meeting was Hr. David C. Fischer.
PDR pcRS 2i0 8403280335 840 215DR
~zsrazz,qz o>z<
qeri;genie~
B
I-I
MINUTES/R. E.
GINNA NOVEMBER 16, 1983 SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN'S OPENING REMARKS Dr. Siess opened the meeting at ll:35 a.m. with a brief statement about the purpose and goals of the'meeting.
He mentioned that three hours were available on the Full Committee agenda for November 17, 1983 (starting at 8:45 a.m.) to discuss the SEP for Ginna and Ginna's license con-version.
Dr. Siess explained that Ginna is an SEP plant because it has not yet received its FTOL and not because it is an older plant.
Me reminded the Staff that while the SEP Subcommittee had handled each of the SEP plant reviews, the conversion reviews would be handled by the specific project Subcommittees.
awhile not allotted specific time on the tentative schedule to speak, the Licensee was invited to comment whenever it so desired.
STAFF INTRODUCTION Mr. F. Miraglia summarized the review process that the Staff is using to convert RGSE's POL to an FTOL.
The SEP findings are the principal basis for the conversion.
In addition to the SEP issues the FTOL review looked at:
major plant modifications, TMI Action Plan issues, major regulatory changes, and Unresolved Safety Issues (USIs).
Issues re-lated to the license conversion that were not discussed in detail in-elude:
anticipated board notifications, relevant hearing contentions, (eg., related =to construction OA, the adequacy of the QA program that is in place at Ginna, environmental
- issues, emergency preparedness, flood protection) and an updated environmental impact appraisal of Ginna.
MINUTES/R. E.
GINNA NOVEHBER 16, 1983 3
SEP PROGRAM UPDATE Nr. D. Persinko updated the Subcommittee on the SEP as it applies to Ginna.
He specifically addressed issues for which the status has changed since NUREG-0821 was issued in draft form (Hay 1982).
NUREG-0821 is called the Integrated Plant Safety Assessment Report (IPSAR) for Ginna.
Hr. Persinko discussed those issues of concern to the ACRS as stated in the Committee's August 18, 1983 letter to the Commission on the SEP review of Ginna (ie., groundwater
- issues, Deer Creek flooding, and an issue on containment isolation valves).
Both the Staff response (dated September 17, 1982) to the Committee's letter and the final IPSAR address the groundwater and containment isolation valve issues.
The Deer Creek flooding issue is addressed in Supplement 1 to the Staff's IPSAR.
Each of the issues in Supplement 1 to the IPSAR was identified.
Selected issues were discussed in detail.
At the request of Mr. Ebersole, the Staff and Licensee described the resolution of II.3.C., Safety Related Mater Supply.
The resolution in-volves new fire hose connections into the diesel generator cooling water and auxiliary feedwater systems.
The Licensee tested whether or not there was sufficient fire water system pressure (flow) to provide the necessary cooling water to those systems.
The test showed that there was more than enough.
The procedure for supplying fire water to the diesel cooling water systems assumes that the diesels are not under load.
MINUTES/R E.
GINNA NOVEMBER 16, 1983 Deer Creek Flood'in:
Mr. D. Chery discussed the Deer Creek flooding issue for the Ginna plant.
There is a 13.9 square mile watershed (with two distinct sub-basins)
W fIowing north past the plant and into Lake Ontario.
The Staff computed the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) flow to be 38,700 cfs.
The PMF is based on the maximum precipitation that can be developed in a given climate.
For Ginna, it is based on about 23 inches of rain falling on the entire 13.9 square mile water shed in a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period. This scenario produces the greatest flooding.
The Licensee computed the PMF flow to be 32,500 cfs.
The licensee claims that the plant is protected against flows up to 26, 000 cfs while the Staff contends that protection is provided only to 25, 000 cfs.
The Staff's PMF flow would be above the Licensee proposed protection level for about 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.
Mr. Chery said that there is no return period associated with the PMF.(A return period indicates how frequently an event, such as the PMF, might occur)
The cur rent agreement between the Staff and the Licensee on how to resolve this issue involves both permanent and temporary fixes to protect against flooding.
The licensee will have procedures to install temporary flood barricades within 45 minutes of an indicated 10,000 cfs flow.
Conservatisms in the Staff's estimate of the PHF were identified (eg., with the assumed PMF flood plain).
Mr. Chery showed the Subcommittee PMF and Limiting Flood water surface profiles for Ginna.
He said that the Staff tried to get a focus on the flooding of Deer Creek by looking at eight small watersheds locat'ed around and in the vicinity of the Ginna plant (Lake Ontario Region).
Mean annual peak discharges were plotted against watershed area using 197 station-years of records.
This was done to calculate the flood frequency distribution for those 197 years of
MINUTES/R. G.
GINNA NOVEHBER 16, 1983 records.
{Hr. Chery used a method that Jim Wal.lace,
- USGS, has pro-posed for evaluating run-off records.
The method takes several different site records and calculates an ensemble probability of frequency distribution for those run-off records).
A Makeby Flood Frequency Distribution was assumed (very close to an extreme value Type II distribution).
This analysis showed that the annual probability of a flood exceeding the Licensee proposed protection
-5
-8 level (26,000 cfs) would fall in the range of 10 to 10 NRR's approach assumes that the annual probability of exceeding the PMF (38,700 cfs) is 10 and therefore, if Ginna's 100 year flood is 3,000 cfs, (by linear interpolation on log-log paper) the annual probability of exceeding the Standard Project Flood (15,000 cfs) is about 4 x 10 and the annual probability of exceeding the Staff predicted protection level (25,000 cfs) is about 5
xl0 Nr.
C.
Grimes said:
"The point to be made in this evaluation was that because of the uncertainties associated with the statistical distri-butions that are projected this far out, the argument developed using the Wallace approach (with the weighted distribution) is not overwhelmingly accepted in the hydrologic community nor completely defensible and by using an approach where one assumes that the Probable Maximum Flood is arbitrarily 10 which is acceptable in the hydrologic community as being a
lower bound on the probability in both cases we came up with a probability for exceedance at the level of protection that seems more than adequate."
MINUTES/R. E.
GINNA NOVEMBER l6, 1983 Nr. Ebersole questioned the Staff and Licensee "on the potential for flooding (via backflow) through some subtle piping system.
The Staff and Licensee said that no credit for drains is given/taken in evalu-ating the damages that might occur from the flooding of Deer Creek.
The Licensee said that dams erected to protect against Deer Creek flooding will not cause a problem in terms of preventing the drainage of internal flood waters away from critical plant equipment.
Structural U
rade Pro ram:
The Structural Upgrade Program at Ginna will address several struc-tural issues (eg.,
wind and tornado loadings, tornado missiles, seismic design considerations, flooding).
The program has been divided into two phases.
The first phase involves defining the design basis tornado, defining a safe shutdown path completely protected from tornado missiles, and defining general acceptance criteria.
During the second phase the Licensee will perform detailed design analyses to meet parameters pro-posed in the first phase.
The Licensee has proposed to upgrade the plant to withstand a 132 mile-an-hour tornado wind with a 0.4 psi pressure drop.
From the SEP topic where the probability for windspeed curves were
-5 developed, that corresponds to an annual exceedance probability of lO with an upper 95 confidence interval.
The Staff believes that this is an appropriate criterion from which to extrapolate the detailed design criteria that should be used.
The structural modifications proposed by RGKE
MINUTES/R. E.
GINNA NOVEMBER 16, 1983 w 7 should ensure that the plant can achieve a safe hot shutdown with one completely protected train of equipment and..then to proceed to cold shutdown.
The modifications are such that they protect the re-actor coolant pressure
- boundary, main steam lines, and main feedwater lines.
The modifications should also help prevent accidents resulting in releases greater than 10 CFR 100 guidelines.
The licensee estimates that the modifications that result from the Structural Upgrade Program will cost
$8-10 million.
Mr. Ebersole asked the licensee whether the plant could sustain a main steam line break inside containment without blowing down both steam generators and possibly overpressurizing the containment.
The licensee said that Ginna is designed with check valves in the main steam lines and therefore both steam generators would not blowdown (ie., the contain-ment would not be overpressurized).
The licensee also said that the main steam line valves are reliable enough to close against full break flow/backflow.
Other SEP To ics Discussed:
Mr. Persinko described a number of items relating to pipe breaks inside 0
and outside containment that were resolved between the time the final IPSAR was published and issuance of Supplement 1 to the IPSAR.
For each, the break location was specified and the resolution {or proposed resolution) was identified.
Fixes for pipe breaks inside containment vary.
One fix will invo1ve some cable rerouting.
Fixes for pipe breaks outside containment include:
rerouting steam lines, installing pipe whip and jet impingement protection, develooing procedures for shutdown, etc.
~ ~
MINUTES/R. E.
GINNA NOVEM8ER 16, 1983 Chan es made to the Plant as a Result of the SEP:
- Hardware, procedural, and technical specification changes made
{or committed to be made) since the draft IPSAR was issued were identified.
Since the draft IPSAR was issued, the licensee has committed to evaluate the potential effect of a block wall failure on main steam and main feedwater lines and to seismically qualify 3 chemical and volume control system hold-up tanks.
0 en Items and Schedule for Thi r Resolution:
Mr. Persinko identified all of the SEP open items (numbering 20) and their scheduled implementation/completion date.
Items listed were "open" in the sense that the evaluations were not done or the interpre-1 tations have not been evaluated or received by the Staff yet.
The last SEP item to be completed will probably be the Structural Upgrade Program.
Final design of the structural fixes are scheduled to be completed by August 1985.
Containment isolation items, scheduled for completion during the 1986 outage, will probably be completed before the structural upgrades are completed.
NRR POL TO FTOL CONVERSION REVIEW Mr. D. Crutchfield stated that Ginna is the first SEP plant going through the POL to FTOL conversion process.
He identified the
- IPSAR, FTOL SER, and the Environmental Appraisal as the Staff's three principal documents supporting the conversion.
The format of the FTOL SER is generally along
~ ~
MINUTES/R. E.
GINNA NOVEMBER 16, 1983 the lines of current OL SERs.
It is intended to address those current safety issues that are addressed in OL SERs.
Mr. Crutchfield indicated that a principal part of the Staff's discussions would be devoted to major plant modifications that have occurred since the POL was issued.
Major regulatory changes promulgated since the POL and what the Staff and licensee have done to comply with them would also be highlighted.
TMI Action Plan Items and USIs would be discussed.
Mr. Crutchfield briefly mentioned board notification issues relevant to Ginna (eg.,
systems interaction questions and Ray Miller material quality).
Ginna is scheduled for a hearing and there are recognized inter venors.
The s
Board recently said that the Staff should renotice opportunity for a hearing.
Consequently, Ginna's hearing may be opened up and broadened.
Ma or Plant Modifications:
Hr. J.
Lyons discussed major plant modifications made at Ginna since the issuance of its POL.
Significant changes (in terms of scope or cost) include:
1) 2)
3) a)
Those resulting from the SEP effort, THI Action Plan requirements, Those required as a result of revised or new regulations, and Other (some licensee initiated) changes.
0
HINUTES/R. E.
GINNA NOVEHBER 16, 1983 Hr. Lyons listed modifications made as a result of 1, 2, and 4 above.
Each modification was briefly described.
Ke answered numerous specific questions asked by the Subcommittee related to these modifications (eg.,
low temperature over-pressure protection, spent fuel pool modi-fications, fire protection, standby auxiliary feedwater system, all "I
volatile chemistry control, full-flowcondensate demineralizers, seismic upgrade, steam generator modifications).
Hr.
G. Dick elaborated on Ginna's steam generators and discussed modifi-cations made to them.
He, discussed when the plant commenced commercial operation, when Ginna changed to all volatile feedwater treatment (to reduce sludge buildup and wastage problems),
when Ginna first noticed intergranular attack of its steam generator tubes (1979),
and finally he discussed Ginna's tube sleeving program (99 tubes sleeved to date - BN's method).
Hr. Dick identified major regulatory changes since issuance of Ginna's POL that have impacted on its design or operation.
THI Action Plant Items:
Hr. Dick stated that most THI Action Plan items have been implemented by RGSE at Ginna.
Licensee proposed responses have been reviewed and approved by the Staff for 41 THI Action Plan issues.
Eight THI Action Plant items have been closed out by the utility {implemented) but the Staff has not yet reviewed the utility's response (there do not appear to be any problems with these responses that might slow up their approval by the Staff).'r. Dick next idenUfied 13 open THI items.
At the request of Dr. Siess, he briefly described why each item was considered open.
RGKE has generally comnitted to'esolve each of these items in a way and on a schedule consistent with
MINUTES/R.
E GINNA NOVEMBER 16, 19S3
-ll-other operating reactors.
The Staff was able to satisfactorily answer all of the Subcommittee's questions related to these open items.
Dr.
Remick questioned the Licensee on the nunber of shift crews it maintains
{5) and the number of SROs per shift (2 ).
RGKE plans on combining the I
functions of the STA with one of its SRO sometime in the future.
(RGSE has made agreements with Rochester Institute of Technology to give its operators the equivalent of 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> of college credit courses).
Unresolved Safet Issues:
Nr. Lyons listed those USIs applicable to Ginna.
From this list he identified those items for which a Staff position/resolution is available (the others are just unresolved and the Licensee must justify continued oper ation, something that has already been done to Dr. Siess'atisfaction).
The Subcommittee discussed the following USIs with the Staff and Licensee:
Waterhammer (A-l), Asymmetric blowdown loads on primary systems (A-2),
Westinghouse steam generator tube integrity (A-3), Anticipated transient without scram (A-9), Reactor vessel material toughness (A-ll), Systems interaction in nuclear power plants (A-17), Environmental qualification of safety related electrical equipment (A-24), Reactor vessel pressure transient protection (A-26), Residual heat removal requirements (A-31),
Control of heavy loads (A-36), and Station Blackout {A-44).
MINUTES/R. E.
GINNA NOYEHBER 16, 1983 Conclusions Reached b
the Staff::
Hr. Lyons highlighted the Staff's conclusions related to the Ginna POL to FTOL conversion.
The legal conclusions that need to be made for the license conversion have been made (see FTOL SER section 22).
The Staff found that the Licensee's management has demonstrated an effective commitment to safety in its approach to plant operations.
They found that maintenance activities receive appropriate management attention and that work is performed in a competent manner.
The NRC Staff believes that the Licensee's staff is technically competent to carry out a wide variety of licensing.functions.
"In general, overall licensee performance reflects management's commitment to safety."
Dr. Siess noted that Ginna had received all 1's and 2's during its last SALP review.
SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE POL TO FTOL CONYERSIONS:
Nr. Crutchfield summarized the current schedule for converting the remaining POLs to FTOLs (See Attachment E).
For the most part, the FTOL reviews are contingent upon the completion of the SEP (ie.,
SEP-IPSAR supplement).
The Staff admitted that the January 1984 estimated ACRS meeting date for Palisades was unrealistic.
The Staff agreed to keep the Committee informed of their POL to FTOL schedule.
MINUTES/R. E.
GINNA NOVEHBER 16, 1983 Subcomnittee's
==
Conclusions:==
The Subcommittee decided to discuss.Ginna's POL to FTOL conversion at the November Full Committee meeting.
Dr. Siess asked that the Staff and Licensee be prepared to discuss the SEP topics of Deer Creek flooding, the structural upgrade
- program, and tornado missiles in detail.
He indicated that little needs to be said about the TNI Action Plan issues and USIs for Ginna.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:30 p.m.
NOTE:
A complete transcript of the meeting is on file at the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H St., N., Washington, D.
C. or can be obtained from Tayloe Associates, 1625 I St., N, Suite 1004 Washington, D.C.
20006 (292) 293-3950
~
a
~
s Fe8iraJ Regbtet /
.o 4L No. RlO,/ Fr[thy, October 26, iQSS Notices the amendment under oonsfderatfon. h Union operator should be given
- ~...
September 28, 19'89I4CQ1), oral ce petftfonl}rwho faHs'to filesuch a DatagramfdentfffdatfonNumber %SF written statements maybepresented by aupplement whfch sat}slee these..
and the foHowfng message addreued to members ofthe eecordhgs wfH.
~ments with respect to at least one Domenfc E VassaHtx petftfoner'e name be permftted y durhtg5ose Portions ontentfon wQInot be permitted to 'nd telephone number, date petition ofthe meeting when a trantcrfpt fs being partfcfpate as a party.
' ', was mailed; plant name; and pubBcatlon kept, and questions maybe asked~
Those permitted to fntervene become data and page number ofthis Federal by members ofthe Subcootmfttea fts s to the proceeding. sub)ect to any Register not}ca Aoopy oftbe petit}on coetsu}tents, and StaKPeesotts deefr}ttI hnftat}one fn the order granthg leave to should eho be sent to the Executive to make oral statements a}xntMnotffy intervene, and have the opportunity to Legal Director, US. Nuclear Regulatory the Cognfzant Federal Etephyee as Sar cfpate fullyfn the conduct ofthe Commfssfon, Washington.D.G 20555.
}nadvance as practfcallfeso that arfng. hcfudfng the opportunity to and to KS. Sanger. Jr Esquire, General appropriate arrangementa can be made present evidence and cros~xamfne Counse4 Tennessee VaHey huthorfty, to aHow the neceuary t}tee during the witnessea
~
'00 Commerce hvenue, EtlB33C, meeting for such statementa..
~
Ifa hearing fs requestetL the Kaoxv}He,Tennessee
%902. attorney for The entire meeting wfffbeopen to, Commfufon wQ1 make a Snal
'he Bcensea public attendanca
+termination on tbe haut ofno Nontfmely f}Bngsofpetitions forhave The aeenda fot sub)set tneetfng shaH efgnfffcant hazart}s ccnsfderatfon. The to fntervene, amended petitions, be as fogowa Inal detelmhatfon wfHserve to decide eupplemental petitions and/or requests when the hearfttg fs held.
for hearing w}Hbe entertahed absent a Wednesday, ¹netnberW Nits-1~
}fthe ffna}determination fs that the determination by the Commfufon, the shttL Until'onctusfoecffBusthess amendment request involves no presfdfng of}leeror the htomfc Safety During the hftfalpcttfon ofthe a}guff}centhexart}s'consfderatfon. the and Lfcenshg Board designated to rule meeting, the Subcommittee, along with Cpmmfufonmay issue the amendment Cm the'petition'and/or request that the ',
any ofits consultants sebo may be
'nd make }tMectfve,notwithstanding 'etitioner has tuade a substantial'resent, mey exchangepreBmfnary the request for a hearing. hny hearfttg showing ofgood cause forthe granting views regarding matters tobe
'afd would take place after issuance of of a late petition and/or request 'Ibat consfdered during thebelsnce ofthe the amendment.
determhetfon wfHbe based upon a Ifthe Snaf determination fs that the balanchg ofthe factors specfffed in 10 The Subconunfttee wff}then hear amendment involves a sfgn}6cant CFR 2.714[a)[1)[f+v) and ~4[d) presentations by and hoM dfscussfons
}lazards consideration. any hearing held -
For further detaQs with respect to this with representatives ofthe Rochester would take place before the issuance of action, see the appBcatfon for Gas and Electric Corpotitfon, NRC any amendment.
alnendment. dated July 13, 1983, as Staff their consultants end other
. NonnaHy. the Commfufon w}Hnot supplemented July ZL1983, which fs interested persons regarthtg issue Qle anlendluen'l tmtQ Qle available forpublic inspection at th<
<<xpfratfon ofthe ~ay notice period.
Commfssfon's Public Document Room.
cwever, should circumstances change.
1H~ H Street, NW Washhgton, D.C has been canceHed or rescheduietL the e}ng the notice period such that faffure and the hthens Public Lfbraty, South iact fn a.timely wey would result for 'nd Funest, hthens, hlabama 35811.
opportunity to sent oral st t cuts
~eatottls, to derattntt or shutdown of the stated atttetheedahterrtseththts ssth due and the ttrne aPoned ttueegor eaa ha fac}Bty,the Commfu ion may issue the obtahed by e prepafd telephone call to Bcense amendment before the For the Nuclear Retufetoty Cotutnfufm.
the cognftkant DesfgnatedFederal
~xpfratfon of the ~sy notice period.
y~~iy~
~
Employee Mr David C.mscher pro'd~ th t f s }maldetetm ation is 4'/0 ti ~tsBtoncIf Nag
[telephone 202/~1') between M5 that the amendment involves no
'/visionofL!censing am. and 540 p~ EDT..
Inal determination w}Hconsider aH
>Bc and State comments recefvetL:",,~~~~ ~:." '
Jehu C. Boy}s.
ould the Commfssfon take this action, AdvisoryGammfaee hhuxeestnent Oficen ubBsh e notice ofissuance and At}vfaoryCottltttftte'e ott Reactor tte~~rudtt~+
I Provide for oPPortunity for a hearing h Safeffuarkfs Subcottuttfttee ott fLF..
wwe coos rs~
aft f sumce.'Ibc Commfssfon
~ 'fntta Hue}ear power pfattt tfttftNo that the need to take this action
.: getfttg,. '.
h request for a hearing or a petition Ibe hCRS.SuScommfttee on R. E forleave to intervene must be fQed with.
Gfnna Nuclear Power Plant Unit No',1'".,'uclear Regulatory Commfufons 19tO, Room 1048, 1y1F H Street, NW..:
Washbtgton.D.C. 30555, httri:Docketing Was on. DC The Subcommittee w}H Amer]catt Stocft Exchattle, ttteet If.
and Service Branch, or may be deBvered review the'appBcatfon ofthe Rochester Ottfer Approvfttg propoaekf Rufe to the Commfssfon's PubBc Document Gas and Electric Corporation to convert
. Room.1' Street, NW Washington. 'ts Provisional Operating License [POL)
D.C by the above data Where petitions to a FuH Tena Opetathg License [PTOL)
October 3t 1I
~:..
. are fQed during the last ten {10) days of '.
tot Gfnna'Ibe Subcommittee wQIalso,
" 'n the Matter of: hmirfkinStodk;....
~
the notice perfod. ftfs rettuested that the, review NUItEG4at andNUREG48a' Exchange. Inc 887rfnftypface, New
. petitioner promptly so fnfottn'the."',"'upplement 1 reganlhg the Systematic York New York10008;Boston StoCk Commfssfon by a toH.flee telephone call Evaluation Program at Gfnna
.. 'xchange, Inc ~ Boston Place,
~
~.
to. Western Union at [800) 335-8000 [tn "
}naccordance with the procedurea. '.'oston. Massechusettstm08; Cfncfnnat}
t>soul} [800) 3ER-NN).1%e Westeri" 'utBned ln the Federal Regfster oa.,
s Stock Exchange, Inc gtNDfxfeTennfna}
<<,<<<<w c4,d choo'ett.sewn'f~dsdsg <<t Veer ',sh e$
g
~
~wss ~sv.
e
+ "r
~
~
~
~~,
I
~
~
s
) JQ
~ g)g) g ios/V1.'IDC 6 gQ~
~
~
OW&Othtl&%4Q,,Al
'he Wtg~llg+~
ri.:!TT-.c mvms:
arm;
%TISH:
ROON 1046 1717 H ST.
'Ng gASH TON, D.C.
g% 1 ~nine-I~
~
I LEASE TTENDANCE K1ST g eel.
C~air~aw F. a.
PA % @~
- 3. (~ ~
cr~)
b E
~c k4A0 9
~/
6 3x.LL.
V4i: *-II'D4v Q7~c-QE
[Jgc 5ErB pa<.e".~i f. ! /w>>'-.
<. g. 5'u'c+Hskt grg~~gP A s'SoS,
~o~
P
~
BRUcK A. S'u3 V.
k~/
Kt~=TR< C.
Rockarrmi A
Elkc7glc-o E
L'cak Geld.vs& @~440
~1 j jgg II%4~ ~
~<
~
~ ~
~
~
4Vl kvVa'~CACS'.1%8~
~g~lTKE-KETLNt'
~
)~yiON:
ROON 1046 1717 H ST.
NW WASH TON D.C.
LEASE.
TTfNDANCE l.1ST',:(,',
Q $ ~~~fJfrR 8 ~~~rrch l.>'i=P.~/
>Ay cd~
3.
5.
~ ~
NIPRONINATE TINE 41:00 a.m.
TE'..-.-.-;;
S..HEr.
~
E FOR
'THE M)VEMBER 16, 1983 ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE NEETING ON Rn K. SINNA ROOM 1046, lll7 H ST
~ N. ~ WASHINGTON, D C.
'TOPIC I. Chairman's Opening Statement
,a.-
Discussion of Schedule b.
@ecting Goals SPEIEEII C. Siess
)1:10 a.m.
II. Overview III. Systematic Evaluation Program a.
ACRS Report on the SEP for Ginna and Staff Response C. Srimesf D. NPersinko F. Nraglka Ca Differences Between Draft IPSAR (Nay 1982) and Final IPSAR (Dec. 1982),
NUREG-0821 NUREG-0821 (including Supplement 1}
- 1) Flooding of Deer Creek (2
Integrated structural analysis (3
Structural upgrade program (4) Pipe b~eaks inside and outside containment
{5) Containment isolation system SEP Backfits Required Since Last ACRS Review 12:30 p.m.
1:30 p.m.
W*tt*
LUNCH
~*4**
IV. POL to FTOL Conversion Review a.
Introduction b.
Cn Na]or Plant Modification Since Issuance of the POL (identify SEP required, TNI Action Plan required, Appendix R required, etc.)
Major Regulatory Changes (Procedural, Staffing, or other) e.
SEP Topics That Remain Open and Schedule for Their Resolution D.
Cr utchfield J. Lyons
- 8. Dick G. Dick
'Wl Action Plan Items (1) Status report on automatic trip of RCPs during LOCAs (II.K.3a5)
(2) Status report on Instrumentation for detection of inadequate core (3) Silty)pnPhtlaf apan TSII Action Plan Itans C.-l PATACIIM%NT Q
Tentattve Schedule R. E. 6tnna APPROXIlOTE TINE TOPIC 2
SPEAKER e.
Unresolved Safety Issues (USIs)
(1) OvervtelN of USIs:
definttton of USI and tdenttftcatton of those appltcable to Gtnna (2) Dtscusston of select USIs
- a. A-3, M S/G Tube Integrtty
- b. A-9, XIMS for NRs
- c. A-l7, Systems Interacttons tn NPPs
- d. A-31, RHR Requtrements
- e. A-44, Statton Blackout
- f. A-45 Shutdown DHR Requtrements f.
Staff Conclustons IV.
Tentattve Dates for Other POL to FTOL Converstons V.
Open Executtve Sesston/Chatrman's Clostng Remarks ADJOURNMENT J. Lyons J. Lyons D. Crutchfteld
I~ ~
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS FOR THE NOVEMBER 16 1983 MEETING OF THE, ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON GINNA r
l.
SECY-82-403, "R.E. Ginna Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) Integrated Safety Assessment,"
dated October 1, 1982.
2.
Memo from R. Major to C. Siess, Subj:
NRC Staff Response to August 18, 1982 ACRS Ginna SEP Report, dated October 1, 1982.
3.
NUREG-0821, "Integrated Plant Safety Assessment, Systematic Evaluation
- Program, R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant," dated December 1982.
4.
NUREG-0821, Supplement 1, "Integrated Plant Safety Assessment Systematic Evaluation
- Program, R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant",
August 31, 1983.
5.
NUREG-0944, "Safety Evaluation Report related to the full-term operating license for R.E.
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant", dated October 1983.
6.
Ltr. from T. Hurley, NRC Regional Administrator to John E. Maier, Rochester Gas 5 Electric Corp.;
Subject:
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Report, dated Sept.
26, 1983.
7.
Memo from D. Fischer to C. Siess, Subj: Project Status Report for the ACRS Subcommittee meeting on Ginna-November 16, 1983, Mashington, D.C.
dated Nov. 3, l983 (Office Use Only).
DOCUMENT AND SLIDES PROVIDED AT THE MEETING 1.
Slides used by Mr. D. Persinko (NRC/NRR/DL/SEPB)
Subject:
Update for Ginna (ll slides).
2.
Slides used by Mr. D. Chery (NRC/NRR/OL/SEPB)
Subject:
Deer Creek flooding (9 slides).
3.
Slides used by NRC/NRR/DL/ORB5; Messrs.
F.
- Miraglia, D.
Cr utchfield, J.
- Lyons, G.
Dick;
Subject:
NRR POL to FTOL Conversion Review (14 slides).
ATTACHMENT D
THE CUPPBiT SI III II'l.l=. I OR CONVEf?TlNG f<I';I%1NlNG POL'S TO RK RAW ~
a POL DATE IPSAR a~.erw- ="
t:RM.f',".JOE'f:f(
I;fI,'i Kt71fllG CQMf(SION SSf:R ra%%ION PALISADES 03/24/71 GrIIINA 09/19/69 OYSTER CREEK 04/09/69 DRESDEN 2 12/22/69 NtLLSTNIE 1
]0/07/70 LA CRossE 08/28/73 10/31/83 04/30/84 11/30/83 04/30/84
(
mn
~tg mA Sva~
es%)~ateN l.l/V/83 IB/30/S3 04PO/84 l7./31 /83 04Pf)/84 01/"II
.13/83 07/."4 06/P4 03/84 01/84 08/84 04/84 08/84 Ol/85 2/
tBD SAN ONnFRE 1 03/27/67 TBP 11$
~
~~A hag(+ lM es S~oW4 ScHEQILFS ARE coNT1NGENT UP0N LlcENsI=I: t%;ETING IPSAR samILF clmlTI'burrs, Sek NtLFmINI-s ARE ALREADY OVEPBII;,
DECIS1ON DATE IS CONT1NGENT UPON CNA Ff'lON OF COIMR lON )II.ARlNGe