ML18079A836
| ML18079A836 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1979 |
| From: | Kevern T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18079A837 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908220524 | |
| Download: ML18079A836 (47) | |
Text
..
~.
Docket No. 50-263 LICENSEE:
Northern Stutes Power Company FACILITY:
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
SUMMARY
OF OPEN MEETING HELD ON MAY 16, 1979 WITH NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY AND MINNESOTA POLLUTION.COiHROL AGENCY REG.U.RDING THE MONTICELLO HIGH DENSITY FUEL STORAGE SYSTEM The NRC staff attended an open meeting with Northern States Power Company (NSP) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) at Roseville>
Minnesota on May 16, 1979 to discuss spent fuel storage racks at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant.
The meeting was requested by MPCA as a result of NRC 1s issuance of the Director's Decision on April 24, 1979 which denied MPCA 1s intervention concerning Monticello's spent fuel storage racks.
The NRC staff attended the meeting to address specific MPCA technical concerns related to design, fabrication and corrosion considerations of the racks, especially witW respect to t~e swelling phenomenon.
The meeting was chaired by the MPCA and was open to the public.
The meeting agenda was based upon questions set forth in MPCA letters (attached) of May 2, 1979 and May 11, 1979.
Each of the questions was addressed individually, with NSP providing the initial response and the staff providing comments as appropriate.
An opportunity was provided for the public to ask questions, relating to the agenda questions, of NSP and the staff.
The meeting was structured and generaliy adherred to the agenda.
Meeting 1 ength was 4 1 /2 hours.
Comments from MPCA members and the public indicated they appreciated the opportunity to meet with and discuss their concerns with the staff.
The meeting attendance, enclosure (3), consisted of:
5 NRC personnel, 4 NSP personnel, 4 MPCA personnel, 2 General Electric personnel, and approximately 50 members of the public, including representatives of several environmental grou~s. Media coverage included local television stations, a local radio station, and several newspapers.
79082 20Sd-1-"
'~.
i !
I
- Meeting Sumnary The MPCA did not arrive at a co~c1~~1r~ - *.~~r~~~~ t:E stora;~ rack issue, but took the meeting infor..-;2tion in-;::CJ rnr:'; i*:;'..::*.:::-~io:L Referens2 rnaterial
- pertinent to the April 24 Director's ~~cision, not available to th2 M?CA at the time of the meeting, is behg ;-,r*ov~c'.ed by the staff.
Prelir:iinary indications are that ~he MPCA technic11 co~ccrns have been alleviated and the MPCA will not pursu2 the issu~ ~n1cs5 th2 r~f2r2nce mat2rial contradicts infonnation presented at L1~ n:~eting.
Enclosures:
- 1.
- 2.
MPCA letter dated May 11) 1979
- 3.
List of Attendees Thomas A. Kevern, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operating Reactors
f I
STATE OF ~.!INNESOTA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GC:;f E~..\\L A.oor.. aa n:*ply To:
OF"FtCE. O'i" ATTOR:"IE.Y C:C::"IE.RAl..
'.!:::;:; C:SOT A ?Ol..!..l'TlON CO:iT~O t. AC~:"ICY l~J$ *.C:un<y Ro>.d BJ j:t.,al'Vtll*. ~.!1nr.esCl:I. !51lJ
~1:/296-~J*J May 2, 1979 Gary v. Welk, Manager Regulatory Compliance & Services Northern States Power Company Minneapoli~, Minnesota 55401 Thomas A. Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch i3 Division of Operating Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:
This will confirm our telephone conversations of this morning in which it was agreed that representatives of NS? and the NRC Staff will meet with representatives ~f the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency at the offices of the ~PCA, hopefully during the week of May 14, 1979, for the purpose of discussing t~e spent fuel storage racks ac the Monticello nuclear generatins facility.
The HPCA deeply appreciates your willingness to participate in these discussions.
The final scheduling of the meeting is dependent on the NRC Staff's availability and will be arranged in the near future.
If at all possible, we would prefer any day*in the week of May 14 except May 17, because two key MPCA Staff raembers will be out of town on that day.
Unless you believe that the scope must be ex?anded, discus-sion will be strictly limited to the follo~ing six technical questions:
( 1 )
( 2)
Given our knowledge of the rack design and fabrica-tion methods, can it be concluded that open chan-nels of communication oresentlv exist along the entire 14-Eoot length of each and every corner?
Given our knowledge of the cor~osion mechanisms and ohvsical dimensions involved, is it ~ossible that lo~g-term corrosion ~ay result in is~lated blockage of corner channels so tha~ lsc~li:ed 5wellino miah~
reoccur during the thir~y to forty-year proj;cte~ ~
life of the racks?
~\\};\\
~~
\\
f
~.
)
Gary V. Welk, Manager Thoma~ A. Ippolito, Chief Page T'!'-'O 11 ay 2 t 19 7 9 (3)
If future isolated blockage of the corner vent channels*is possible, are there technical or other reasons for failing to drill vent holes during fabrication at regular intervals along the entire 14-foot length of the channels?
(4)
Would an increase in the thickness of the inner stainless steel layer of the tubular wall make future swelling impossible, even if gas should become trapped in the future?
(5)
If an increase in the thickness of the inner stainless steel layer of the tubular wall would preclude all possibility of future swelling, regardless of the blockage of hydrogen gas in the future, are there technical or other reasons for failing to increase the thickness of that layer?
(6)
How could a jammed spent fuel assembly be safely removed in t'he event of 'renewed 'swelling, par-ticularly if swelling is localized in the manner referred to in question (2), recognizing that the specific remedy employed.at Eadda~ Neck was to drill vent holes which will already exist at Monticello?
The MPCA understands that there are s9ec1r1c answers to these technical questions which, for various reasons, were not fully explored in the Director's Decision dated April 24, 1979.
Because these discussions will be open to the public, it is important that members of the public fully understand the limited nature of the proposed meeting.
As we have agreed, our discus-sions do not constitute a "hearing" in any sense of that term.
No one will be testifying on behalf of any party and there will be no cross-examination.
The meeting is not designed to be a search for fault but rather will orovide a forum at which we all hooe that the MPCA's narrow tech~ical concerns about possible future rack swelling may be laid to rest.
I will be contacting you in the near future to request t~at you provide us with copies of a very limited nu~ber of the do~u ments referred to in the Director's Decision or i~ our conver-
Gary V~ Welk, Manager Thomas A. Ippolito, Chief Page Three May 2, 1979 s~tions over the past few days.
If you have any additional written materials on these six questions which could be provided at or before the meeting, that would be a?preciated, but the MPCA is not asking you to prepare any further written materials for the meeting unless you believe that such materials ~ight be helpful in addressing t~e questions.
As soon as the NRC Staff is able to suggest a meeting date, !
will arrange a place at the MPCA.
Thank you again for your cooperation in attempting to resolve the narrow technical concerns of my client.
JMS:rmn cc: Russell Hatling Thomas L. Donovan, Esq.
Grant J. Merritt, Esq.
Ken Peterson, Esq.
Joseph D. Bizzano, Esq.
Roland E. Olson Gail Gendler MPCA Board Members Very truly yours,
_.;:; i
... J I,
,..: c. ""'- -
I*.....J.
,..,(1. :..........~
~
Jann-Mark Stensvaag S Special Assistant Attorney General
May 11, 1979 Gary V. Welk, Manager Regulatory Compliance & Services Northern States Power Company Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Thomas K~vern, Project Manager l)p'e"ratliig Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operating Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:
Agency This will confirm our. understandiryg that the meeting on the Monticello spent fuel storage racks wiil be held at the off ices of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Roseville, Minnesota, on Wednesday, May 16, 1979, at 9:00 a.m.
The meeting will be held in the first floor Board room.
Mr. Louis Breimhurst, Deputy Director of the MPCA, will chair the meeting for the purpose of coor-dinating discussion.
As you know, discussion is to center on six technical issues framed by the MPCA.
In posing those questions, the MPCA has assumed, based on information previously provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Northern States Power Company, that the solution of drilling holes in the tops of the four existing racks has proven to be completely effective to eliminate swelling in the short term.
In the April 24, 1979, Director's Decision at 4, for example, the NRC stated unequivocally:
At Monticello, the swelling was easily relieved by putting two holes in diagonal corners of the upper ends of the rack (venting).
This allowed the trapped gas to escape and the water to fill the void annular spates.
The hydrostatic pressures were thus equalized and the swelling was relieved.
(Emphasis supplied).
Phone: _____
1935 West County Road 82, Roseville, lv1innesota 55113 Regional Offices
- Duluth/ Brainerd; Detroit Lakes: Marsh::ill Rocr2s:er Equal Opportunity Employu I
\\..j.
I
Gary V. Welk, Manager Thomas Kevern, Project Manager Page Two May 11, *1979 Two days ago, the MPCA received an inspection report issued by R.F. Heishman of NRC Region III on April 10, 1979, which flatly contradicts previous representations by the NRC and NSP on this matter.
That report indicates that NSP has known since last fall that the swelling was never successfully relieved in more than half of the affected cavities, and that swelling has subsequently reoccurred in two more of those originally swollen cavities.
To summarize the report, relevant portions of which are attached to this letter, six of the original eleven swollen tube locations would not accept the sizing gauge, despite the drilling of the holes and the "re-sizing of each tube by vacuum and mecha-nical means."
Within sixty days, a seventh tube had swollen to the point where it would not accept the gauge.
After ninety days, an eighth tube would also not accept the gauge.
The report does not indicate whether the tubes have been rechecked in the past six months to ascertain whether swelling has also reoccurred in the three remaining tubes.
Given the pattern of renewed swelling in tubes within the ninety-day period, such a possibility should cer-tainly be fully explored.
In view of the previous assurances of the NRC and NSP that all swelling had been relieved, the MPCA is stunned by this new disclosure of such old information.
We feel that this deeply disturbing information must be discussed at the forthcoming meeting, and will be eager to hear any explanation which you may have to off er.
TH:js Attachment cc: Russell Hatling Thomas L. Donovan, Esq.
Grant J. Merritt, Esq.
Ken Peterson, Esq.
Joseph D. Bizzano, Esq.
Rolahd E. Olson Gail Gendler MPCA Board Members
NORTHERN STATl:!:S POWER MINN!!:Ai-OLI... MINNl!'.tlOTA ~e.... 01 Xay 21, 1979 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U S Nuclear Regulatory Co~::ission
~ashington, DC 20555
- e.
COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEA... q, GENERATI~G PLANT Docket No. 50-263 License No. DPR-22 High Densitv Fuel Storage Svstern Inspection "Report 50-263/79-02 from I&E Region III included information on the ~onticello High Density Fuel Storage System.
It stated that 11 of the 676 fuel storage locations sho...,ed dimensional changes (i.e., s1.1elling) after installation.
It further stated that each boral tube was drilled at the to? adjacent corners (i.e., to prevent further S\\.'elling) and the 11 tubes 1.1ere reforwed by vacuum and nechanical neans.
The report did not specifically state that the six resized tubes, that 1.1ould not accept the gauge, were gauged before reinstallation in the pool.
Tne report goes on to state that as.a result of gauging at 60 and 90 days after reinstallation, two ~ore resizeo tubes would not accept the gauge.
Ho...,ever, all eight tubes 1.1ill accept the dum.iuy fuel asse!!!bly *. It is our oyinion that these eight tubes have not exhi~ited :urther s~elling, but that lack of gauge acceptance is due to inability to "shrink" the metal back to its original conformation by the resizing process.
The inspection report further states "These eight locations have been
'red' flagged and the licensee stated they would not be used unless absolutely necessary".
To further clarify our position on this matter, NSP will not use the-*
eight resized f~el storage tubes unless a safety evaluation has been completed, the NRC has been notified of the proposed use of these tubes and afforded an opportunity for review.
L 0 Hayer, PE Manager*of Nuclear Support Services LOH/ak cc:
J G Keppler G Charnoff
'!1PCA Attn: J
';.! Fe ri:::an
,~ *~., :-: 'i~': :.1
~.: ~* :
~: -= ~ w *.,j,/;.~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION OF NUCLEAR POWER NEEDS OF PENNSYLVANIA-NEW JERSEY-NARYL&~D Place-Washington, D. C.
0 Cate -
Thursday, 14 June 1979 Pcges 1-38 0
ACE. FEDER.\\L REPORTERS, I);C.
Official Reporters J44 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 2C001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY Telephone:
(202) 3A.7-3iGO
CR5361 1
DISCLAEER This is an unofficial t=anscriot of a meetina of the United States Nuclear Regulatory ColEl1ission held ;n Thursday, L4 June L979 in t~e Commissions' s off ices at 171 7 R Street, 'N. W., Washinston, D. C.
The*
meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcrip~
has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the forsal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Ex?ressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argu.~ent contained herei~, except as the Commission may authorize.
'I I !
CRS 362 I
i I
~lELTZErt/rn.m 1. !J 2 11 I*
I I
3 i 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 181 19 20 i
21 I 221 23.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Public Meeting DISCUSSION OF NUCLEAR POWER NEEDS OF PENNSYLVANIA-NEW JERSEY-MARYLAND Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington,D.C.
Thursday,. 14 June 1979 2
Meeting in the above-entitled matter was convened, pursuant to notice, at 3:15 p.m., JOSEPH M.
HENDRIE, Chairman, presiding.
PRESENT:
JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner RICHARD KENNEDY, Commissioner PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner Messrs. Smith, Feehan, Price, Everett, Eckert Lindsay, Haines, Fowlkes, and Hoyle.
24 !
I Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 i i
11 ii
rrun2,
I I I I
2 JI 3
4 5
61 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 191 I
20 I I
21 I 22 II I
23 i I
3 P R 0 C E E D I N G S CHAIR.i.'1.~N HENDRIE: Let's see, the second group of briefers headed by Mr. Robert Smith, Chairman of the Public Service Gas & Electric.
Please bring up whomeveryou would like to have at the table and introduce them for the record, please.
Go head.
MR. SMITH:
Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am Robert I. Smith, Chairman, Chief Executive, Public Service Electric & Gas Company.
I am here this afternoon as the representative of the Pennsy 1 vania-New.:*Jersey-Maryland interconnection and the owners of Salem.
With me at the table, on my far right, John Feehan, Chief Executive of Atlantic City Electric.
Next to him, Bill Price, who is Vice President, Generation Delmarva Power & Light Company.
On my left, Lee Everett, Chief Executive Officer of Philadelphia Electric Company.
Next to Lee, Dick Eckert, our Senior Vice President,
-Public Service, of Energy Supply & Engineering.
In the audience we also have John McDonald, who is our Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs, Public 24 i*1 Sevice.
>\\ce-Federal Reporters. Inc. i 25 ii Also Richard Fryling, our Assistant General Solicitor I*
- I
- 1
rnm3 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 I
,, I 12 13 14 15 16 17.
18 19 20 21 22 23 !I 24 11 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. i I 25 :1 11 4
From Philadelphia Electric, Vincent Boyer, Senior Vice President.
And I might also mention the President of our New Jersey Board of Public Utilities George Barbour wanted to be here today. He was unable to do so. But I understand that a letter --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: He is represented by a letter to the Conunissioners.
MR. SMITH: Fine.
Our pµrpose here today is to discuss the power supply situation of the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland connection with specific reference to Salem No. 2.
I think the gentlemen from the Department of Energy have described the interconnection so that it is unnecessary for us to do that. And I think we can say that we agree with them that our reserves during this corning summer will be adequate.
However, the cos~ of that supply are up in part because of the Three Mile Island accident and removing those two units from the system, and of course the continuing increase in the cost of fuel oil is directly affecting our customers.
Of prime concern to us is the operation of Salem No. 2.
I don't think I have to describe the unit. You are familiar with it. It is 1100 megawatts Westinghouse Unit.
It
mm4 I I l I 211 I'
i 3 I I
4 51
- 6.
7 81 i
91 10 l 1 12 13 16 17 l B I 19 I I
I 20 i I
I 21 !
! i 22 I i
I 23 I
'I li 24 'I Aa'!*Federal Reporters, Inc. !
25 ii I! :i
- 1 I'
- I 5
is owned by the four companies here represented; Public Service and Philadelphia Electric each own 42 percent, and Delmarva,Atlantic City Electric each own 8 percent.
A recent NRC announcement indicates that the present intent is to delay, at least until August 1st, the operating license of Salem 2, and that is of importance to us.
We believe that Salem No. 2 is essentially ready for operation. Construction is complete, testing is complete up to the core load.
And as we understand it, all modifications required by the NRC to date have been completed.
Our field people tell us that they believe that the Region 1 inspectors are satisfied the plant is ready for an operating license.
The review by the NRC Staff in Washington is not quite complete, but there are very few outstanding items.
We believe that these can be resolved in a very short period of time.
The primary difference between Salem 2 and the operating nuclear unit on the system is that about a five-month test program is going to be required before commercial
- operation of Salem 2, after we receive the operating license and the plant, of course, is not presently radioactive.
In focusing on the Salem 2 operating license, I would like to briefly discuss four aspects of the Salem delav.
First, with regard to load carrying ability on
mtnS II I
I I I I I
I 2,,
I 3 I 4
51 I
6!
7 8
91 I
I 10 I l l 12 13 14 I 15 11 I 6
the system, I think that ~u0ject ~~s ~een ~de~~ately discussed with regard to reserve CQ~acity. ~owever, within the Southern part of New Jersey we could be tight on voltage requirements during peak days.
Even with a low output from Salem 2, having the unit synchronized with this system, would give us the voltage stabilization which would be advantageous for possible peak loads in September.
Obviously --
COMMISSIONER riHEA&'JE: What period did you say would be a problem in handling the voltage stability?
MR. SMITH:.Where it could be.
CO~~lISSIONER AHEARNE: In what period did you say?
Summer?
MR. SMITH:
Peak in September.
We occasionally 16 have peaks in that system in September.
Obviously this unit 17 1
can't be ready for June and July peaks. But, if it could even 18 I
1911 20' 21 i I
22 I I
23 !
24 ii l.ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.:
be on-line and synchronized, it could be of help in late September.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: When does your system experience its peak?
MR. SMITH: We have had peaks in June and in September.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Its annual peak?
MR. SMITH:
Yes.
Oh, system peak.
I am talking
mm~
I
'I 1i i/
11 1 Ii. !i 2 ii 11 ii 3 i 4
5 I
61 I I 71 8
9 10 11 12 13 16 17 I 18 19 ii 20 :I IJ 21 22 23 24 I
.l.ce-Federal Reporters, Inc. j 25 I I
7 about our company peak.
It various with the different companies.
?Ji:*I' s peak has been during the summer months. But we have had peaks in June.
Ours has been, peaks also in SepteElber.
COM..r..iISSIONER BRADFORD:
But the oeak -- PJM system peak is generally July, August?
MR.EVERETT:Corresponds to hot weather. Whenever we have hot weather in the summer we have a peak.
MR. SMITH:
Actually, a lot of industries are shut down during the summer months, so we have reduced operations.
You are liable to have a peak in June if you have a hot day, or September, if you have a hot day, because they are normally -- it is not during their normal vacation period.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Do you know offhand how many years in the last 25 years, the annual peak has occurred in either June of September?
MR. SMITH:
I do not have that information.
MR. EVERETT: Since about 1965, '66.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Every year?
MR. EVERETT: Every year.
COMMISSIONER BR~DFORD: Either June or September?
MR. EVERETT:
We have a substantial difference between winter and summer peak.
mm*7 I I I I
I I i 2 ii I 31 41 I
sl I I
6!
7 31 I
9' lol I
1 l 12 131 141 I
15 11 I 161 I
17 I 18 I 19 I I
I
/I 20 ii i
I 21 l I
22 l I
231..,
2<1 I
.l.ce-Federal Reoorters, Inc. ii 25 ii i!
lj 1!
ii 8
COM~'1ISS IO~:E?,
3~:..::.__:-JFORJ:
I am talking about June or September ve~sus J~ly or ~~gust.
.MR. EVERETT:
It is ~m~ossible to say when during the summer season we will get t:-1e hot weather. It usually takes three or four days of very hot humid weather to develop the saturation of heat that causes the air conditioning peak.
But, as Bob said, it could be in June or September with perhaps weather that is not quite so hot because of industry going full tilt.
COMMISSIONER AEEARNE: But the question was going back the last 25 years.
MR. EVERETT:
I don't have a list.
MR. FEEHAN:
September 23rd is burned in my memory.
(Simultaneous discussion.)
MR. SMITH:
Let me point out, the two major problems we have had on our system, one occurred in June and one occurred in September.
MR. ECKERT:
Big outages. They weren't during the peak.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And were they because of a shortage of capacity?
MR. ECKERT: No.
MR. SMITH:
It was a shortage of capacity in September.
mm8
!I
~ i 9
!J
- 1 MR. EVERETT:
It was brought on by a shortage, 11
- i 2,,
' :i but it wasn't as a direct result of an inadequate ability 3
to serve at that point. It was brought on by units not i
4 I
I coming on when scheduled, and therefore having to rearrange 5,
- 1 6 i transmission lines in order to cope with the reduced capacity.
And the lines weren'tarranged so that they were reliable I
II I 7 :j enough.
And when an operating error happened, why it 8 *1 cascaded on the system.
i I
9 i MR. SMITH:
I think the people from DOE have also
- 1 10 :1
-indicated that a major portion of our generation, about 29 11 percent is nuc_lear. So, obviously, we need nuclear capacity I I 12 !
I on our system to maintain operations.
I i
13 i ii So, if for any reason the thought was occuring to ii 14 :1 ii anybody to shut down nuclear plants on our system, we would 15 ii,,
t!
be in deep trouble.
~ i 16 i!
With regard to the economics, again, there has 17 i!
been quite some discussion on the fuel cost differential
- i ;
~
18 :1,,
!J I*
i9 '!
and the net results to the customers.
With Salem at 100 percent capacity, our figure is $600,000 a day. This is 20 not out of line with the DOE figure which I think was 21,l
$400,000 some odd, on the-basis of 70 percent capacity
- 1 22 !i factor.
I* :!
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But you would never be 24' running at any length of time at 70 percent capacity, would
~-Federal Reporters. Inc_ '
25,;
you?
mm9 10 MR. SMITH:
We hope we do.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Some year.
3 MR. SMITH: This is a scenario that can go on all 4
afternoon.
5 CHAIRJ.'-1AN HENDRIE:
A 100 percent day is worth so 6'
much, and if you move off to longer periods of time since you aren't going to run every day, every hour at 100 percent, you grade down, and everybody choose his own guess at the 9
reasonable annual plant factor and we will apply accordingly.
10 !
MR. EVERETT: These are monthly factors, I think.
i 11 I We are not talking about annual.
There is a difference.
We 12 have had monthly capacity factors of our nuclear units over I
13 ii 100 percent.
14 ii COMMISSIONER BRP.DFORD: But not, probably, during
- I
!I 15 ii the startup period.
16 :1 MR. EVERETT:
These were mature units.
ii l7il MR. SMITH:
We used for our calculations, a 5 mil J!
f!
18 !i per kilowatt hour fuel cost for nuclear, and 25 mils for the ii
- 1 19 ::
oil, which are somewhat more conservative, I think, than 20,:
21 !! ii 22 II il Ii 11 23 !:
24.
the figures which DOE suppLied.
I think the other factor that perhaps should enter into consideration of the capacity factor in Salem 2 is that it is a duplicate of Salem 1, which we have had operating experience with.
I think a lot of the problems
- ~-Federal Rep0rters, Inc.**
25.
I*
- 1.
I
- I that might have occurred with the first unit on the plant we
11 rr~lO 1
- have taken care of, so I think there is a better chance o=
having higher capacity factor in Salem 2.
However, I think probably more ~~portant t~an t~e 4
economics with regard to our customers is the saving in 5
oil consumption which can be made by operation of this nuclea~
6:1 unit.
Again this 100 percent capacity at the nuclear is I
7:
8 I 9;
i 10 !
i l l i i
I 12 ! I I 13 !1 14 11
- 1 15 '11 I.
'I
!I 16 ii
- 1
- 1.
17 ii 18 ii
- 1 19 ::
~ :
20 i
- e-Federal Reporters, Inc. '
25 !i 1!
I equivalent to a saving of 45,000 barrels a day of oil.
And again, you can take however many days at what percentage capacity you want and use that 45,000 barrels a day figure to come up with an oil savings.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Are you saying that from this system that you would definitely be using oil capacity to replace it?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
I think it has been pointed out that we operate in economic dispatch. We have examined the availability of capacity from adjacent systems. We are utilizing all the coal burning capacity in our own system.
As a matter of fact we have more than this much oil burning on our system, but we just backed off that.
The investment in Salem 2 is $700 million. Part of that is in construction work in progress in the rate base, but only a very small. part of it.
.Maybe a third of that.
This unit, of course, is sitting there. It is a
L mmll e
e 12 I...
~~s got inte~est charges, of course, O!"l t:::--_E~
- r.':'D~'-'.
_Z\\:id..)..
l,_ costs about 3
$1000 a month, jl!st for :=ot::-:::-::::.:*:
S""~~--..-::.ce to J.:ee9 the thing 4
moving.
- 5.
6 8
9 10 11 i
I I
12 !
I 13 11 11 14 ii 11 15 :I ii 16 :1 d
'i ii l7 ;!
1!
,j,,
20,:
MR. ECKERT:
A million dollars.
MR. SMITH:
I'm sor~y, a million dollars a month.
(Laughter.)
I could never talk in that long a number.
Now I think we all recognize that Three Mile Island was a very serious accident, aid that following Three Mile Island all of us have beeniequired to examine our nuclear operations.
Immediately after the accident we established a task force within the company to examine all the details of the accident.
We referred them to our Salem designs to see what corrections or modifications should be made as a result of that investigation.
We have had 25 people full time working on that.
We have added to that representatives from the other owners who are working with this task force. We anticipate that within the very near future we will have up to 60 people worki~c full time on the design and investigation of some of these possible modifications.
We have worked with a Westinghouse owners' group
.:e-Federal Reooners, Inc. * !
25
- which was assembled irnmedia tely after the accident, who r:
mw12 e
13 reviewed the Westinghc~~~ ~ssign.
Our peo9~~ are activ~ in the AIF task forces and
~ ;;)?T i:-1 e;-:arnining the ramifications of the ac:::::.::.2:.-.-:..
We are well along in finalizing design of some 5
of the modi~ications. We have ordered equi9ment for some changes, and have actually accomplished a number of changes as of this date.
I have before me a 13-page list of items which we are working on; some of the things which we have concluded; have done the work on Salem 2 pressurizer logic change; alarms 11 for the pressure operated relief valve; saturation indications 12!
in the computer which are given directly to the operator; 13/J and containment isolation in case of an accident.
We do I.,,
14 1
1 have positive containment isolation.
. I We are in the midst of design, have all the material 16
- for a reactor head vent system 17 '.i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: When you say containment 18,:
isolation, what would trigger it?
'.i JO,:
, *r
- i MR. SMITH: Any one of a number of factors.
20 MR. ECKERT: There is a lot of things that will 21,;
trigger containment isolation.
~i 22 Ii CO.M.1'1ISSIONER BRADFORD: But that was true in Three 23 Mile Island as well.
The problem is having the right thing 24 trigger it.
- ce-F-ederal Reoor~ers, Inc.
25 MR. ECKERT: We had to look at the logic as to just
- inml3
~ -.
14 when it would be triggered and when it wouldn't.
Ii For instance, safety injection.
I don't think that triggered containment isolation in TMI. It does for us.
CHAIRMA.N HENDRIE: No, it didn't.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But it does with you?
MR. ECKERT: This kind of thing.
It is very complex, we realize, but that is an example.
MR. FEEHAN:
It doesn't wait for the pressure to get to 4000 --
(Inaudible.)
l 0.
MR. SMITH:
Rate of water rise, reactor vessel 11 i level, things like that.
We are engaged in designs and
' i 12 *.
securing material.
l I
13i!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What are you doing about
- 1 il 14 :1 reactor water level?
f!
- '1.,
15 :1,,
- 1 MR. SMITH
16 :!
think on that.
- j 17 :/
Dick?
We are working with Westinghouse, I 18 ::
MR. ECKERT: Yes, we have some preliminary designs,
- i :i 19 but we have some problems with those designs and they really 20 have to be finalized at this stage.
21 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What is the aim here on this iJ 22 Ii particular item?
To try to get some indication down in ii,,
23 !:
the vessel, upper part of the vessel?
24.
MR. ECKERT:
Yes.
ce-Federal Reoorters, Inc..
25.
But it is a complex thing to do and the design has
~ :
'*)it...
nunl4 11 17 i!
- /
- 1 18 :i
!I ::..
~~*
--~
15 NRC at the present ti~e.
these things as being a~~ected by the plant going critical?
MR. SMITH: Well, Salem 1 has been operating for two years. This is an identical design which we have already made modifications to, tte things we are considering -- we are also planning to install in Salem l at the first opportunity,
- assuming the NRC approves the changes we have proposed.
MR. ECKERT:
If you are concerned about the radiation field in installing some of these things, we looked at the two we think are most difficult to install, which is the vent system and the water level in the reactor. And we don't see either one of those requiring a lot of man hours being worked in the high radiation level.
We don't think it is very significant as to whether the plant has actually operated or not.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What is your projection Dick, on 19 *;
when you shake out with Westinghouse on whether you really
'I 20 21., d
- 11 22 1!
!i 23 ii 1i *:
want to do those things or not, and how, exactly, you do them?
Because you know there is a period of time here in any unit, of course,in the workup when you still have relatively modest radiation levels even in close. So there 24 is some period of time.
<.-e-Federal Reporters. Inc. :-
Do you project that you are settling down on whethe=
\\
mw"l 5
- i 16 I
I you are going to do it or not, is it near term or months?
2 MR. ECKERT: From a radiation point of view, we I
3
'I looked at the radiation levels that exist on number one whic'.-:
..j has been operating, and we considered some of these designs and used those radiation levels. And ~hat's what I mean, using those levels we did not have an excessive amount of radiation.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What sort of numbers are you talking about?
MR. ECKERT: Give me a minute.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Surely.
I 12 I MR. SMITH:
I think what we are saying is we 13 ii have divided some of these into short-term and long-term.
'I !:
1,\\
14 ;;
Some of these are going to take maybe years to work out the 15" designs and changes, develop specific designs and get the material.
Some of the valves we ordered have fairly long 18 ::
I lead time, so that we will be accomplishing all of the things 19 ;
we can accomplish short-term, within a very short period of 20 time.
21 MR. ECKERT: In response to your earlier question, ii 22 \\\\
the vessel vent system, if indeed the final design in I
23 1, Salem is a __ preliminary design, and please understand that 24 qualification, we would see a total manrem exposure of about
,-e-Feae* 11 Reporters. Inc_
25 4 manrem.
nunl6 17 i
On the level instrumentation I have a radiation i
2 :i level in which men would work, but I don't have the man hours
- 1 3
involved in it.
4 Talking about work on the reactor head, which runs 5
75 to 100 mr per hour.
Hotleg connection, which is 100 to 6
300 mr.
And some work in the bottom of the vessel, which 7i is again 100 to 350.
8 :
This vessel level design is not as firm in our 9'
i 10 ii 11 i I
12 !
i I I 13 i, ii
~ I "
14 ::
jj,,
i 15 :i *:.
17 ::. ;,,
18 ::
- i
- ' *i 19 ':
20 21 :;
'I ii minds as the vent design.
So I would say those numbers are more in question --
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And even the design that you have there, roughly what kind of hours are you talking about for that installation?
MR. ECKERT:
On the vent design --
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: No, on the pressure level.
MR. ECKERT: What kind of man hours?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes.
MR. ECKERT: I don't have that number with me.
But obviously the full intent would be to prefabricate everything ahead of time, d6 nothing more than make a few cuts.
Probably in the area where the incore thimbals come 22 \\! into the seal room.
Ii It is a radiation area, but it is not
'lJ :
i:
so high that you can't put people in it for direct work.
up 4....
~
C0~~1ISSIONER AHEARNE: You don't have a tap alreadv
.c-e-Federal Reporters, Inc. :.
2 c; 'i I'
- f on say the hotleg?
- I
!I 11 2 Ii I
18 MR. ECKERT: Well, we have -- the hotleg, well we have vents, drains, things of that nature.
That is a 3
difficult thing to design because you have to look at the 4
velocities, the water that is going in. That is the hard 5
10 11 i 12 ll
- 1 13 ii,,
ii
!i 14 ;\\
1:
I*
15 :i
- 1*
16 '!
I part is the top tap, not the bottom tap.
The bottom tap you can do in the seal cable area.
MR. SMITH:
The other area of investigation prompted by Three Mile Island is, of course, operator training. We have reviewed our operator training.
We have always had an extra shift on operations at Salem 1, and will have on Salem 2. This extra shift is essentially in training during the off periods. They also provide backup, vacation and absences by other shift members.
But we have provided continuous training of our operators.
We have been working with the industry and the AIF particularly has a task force working in operator training 17 !
and we endorse their proposal to establish a nuclear opera-18 'i tions institute which will essentially be a quality assurance 19 *:
institute for opera tors in such an area where it is demon-20 strated that we do need continuous high-level operator training.
In summary, we see Salem 2 as a duplicate of i
- ?3
\\~
Salem 1 with some modifications already made as a result of 2J the Three Mile Island incident.
,:.; F~erat Ro:DOrtt?rs. Inc. :
25 ;
We would urge that you consider expediting the I
F
mm~8 2
3 5
6 :!
7 !I
- 1 8.:
- 1 9 :I 10 i 1
I l 1 I I I
12 i I 13 ii
!I 14 ii ii 15 d
't 16 :I I
- 1 l 7 I~
- i 1:
18 ::
19,*
19 Salem 2 license because of not only the economic benefits, 8~~
the savings in oil ~hich will result.
We feel that this can be done without compromising safety at all.
And that is our presentation.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Could I ask you, are you saying that the things our Staff wants to have done can be done more quickly, or that they don't need to be done before the plant goes into operation?
In effect, they are operating out of an excess of caution?
MR. SMITH: Well, I think we have responded to all of the bulletins that have been issued. I'm not sure that we all know what things the Staff wants to be done yet.
However, Salem 1, as I said, is an operating unit.
As far as I know we are not talking about shutting those units down. We have made modifications to Salem 2. We will make any other modifications that are considered to be necessary.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You have to start somewhere, though, md it is natural to start with plants that haven't
--.....----*.*-.I*--*-**..... -.-.-.--~.. -*------*-*---... --------.--...................,_..*. --.- **-- *----.:,.._,,,,..... __ **-* ~---...... --**- --
started up yet. So they are, naturally, treated differently
- I
_______.,..------~ *.*
20 than plants that are operating, just as you would treat a 21
.plant that is not yet constr~cted more differently.
~-*.. - -
.... -~.--
..*....... -,...~---... *.* *..'"'"""""-..-*.*:..; ---* -..
22 23 24 :,
~-Federal Reporter>, Inc.::
I, 25 :
I',.
- t
- i ii But what I am trying to get at is, what is your view about the position of our Staff, which seems to be what is in issue here?
MR.SMITH:
Well, the public indication has been
rmn'l9
!I II,j
'* I ii Ii 2
l,,
Ii 3
4 5
6' 7 :1 ij 8 '
- I 11 9 ' :
10 11 12 i
I I
13 11 11 ii 14 :1
.i 15,,
- t
- 1 16.!
' I 17' 20 that the license will be delayed until August 1st.
I think a different way of stating might be, at least until August 1st.
We are concerned that this thing will drag out.
And you can argue about whether it is $600,000 a day or
$300,000 a day, but it_ is still a tremendous amour+/-of money.
And we think it is in the national interest to reduce the burning of oil, and this 45,000 barrels a day I think represents about 10 percent of the national shortfall.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But the 45,000 barrels a day --
MR. SMITH:
But that is going to come sometime.
Maybe October or November, if you start now.
MR. ECKERT:
A delay in the startup will do nothing more than move a whole block of work further out in time.
(Simultaneous discussion.)
MR. ECKERT: So it means very little if you are I
18 ::
replacing it in September, October, November, or the next
- I 19 ':
three months.
We will still have a net difference.
20 21.:
ll
- 1 22 Ji 1! H "
23.:
I:
24 ;,.
MR. EVERETT: You* never make up a lost day in our business.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask my question again.
Are you asking that the plant be turned on for 1ce-Federal Reporters, Inc. ;,
25 ::
i; i
~
.i approved operation today, or simply that we take these
I I
- 1 11 inm20 l :i ii
- j 2 i
- i 3
- I I
21 important matters into account as we go down the road and review what needs to be done?
MR. SMITH:
I think we can ask you to authorize I.
.;q j * * *the plant to be turned on today. But I am sure that you I
I s:
'I i
6 !
7 have the final say in this. You will have to, in your conside~2 judgment decide whether the plant should be kept off for another three months, four months or six months.
I think all we presented today is what we see as the consequence~ of delay.
CHAIRi.'\\lA.N HENDRIE: I think the Staff has been working to gather up and sort out what they believe are the short-term steps that ought to follow from Three Mile Island, in addition to the ones represented by the bulletins d
14 ;1 already is sued.
iJ
'I 15 ;j And it would be my hope that we could develop
- 1 I
16 !
those in fairly straightfon;ard fashion pretty quick now.
The
- j 17 *;
work has been going on for several weeks. And then see how 18 !
fast look at your list of things you are already doing and
'.\\
19 ::
see how those things are coming along and how soon they might 20 be implemented and what is 'reasonable to do, and look at it 21 :i
. from that standpoint.
- I
!I 22 !:
I don't, for myself, regard us as being in some 2J mode where we have just shrugged and ___ ~a-~d_,_ we1,_J., no we 24 are not considering anyth~'.:1~--.-~hi:;_ s~a~?~-~ --~ry us next*
..:e-Fe..ieral Reporters. ! n..:.
25 winter.
! dnn't perceive it that way in any sense.
' mrn21 22 And I think it would be useful for us perhaps to 2 ii have some indication of the direction you are going. The
- 1
- I 3 i i
.t I I
5:
Staff will certainly want to go over these in detail pretty quick any way.
Among other things, I think there is considerable interest in things like that vessel level indication, and about whether in fact the analyses would support one's sort of first reaction which was, well, gee, that seems like a pretty good idea, why don't we do that.
But, I would like some sense that it might ultimately be useful in at least some cases, and as people who have some experience. around water -- around boilers know, liquid level, a two-phase system is very good.
It is a pity we have to measure it.
MR. ECKERT:
Particularly a dynamic system.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
16 ;;
So, you know, it is not just a transparently 17:i simple situation where even the meanest intellect will i'
18
- arrive at the right solution on casual observation.
And I 19 *:
20 21 ::
- i I.
22 ii 11 I*
I 23 ;'
24 *.
am sure the Staff will be interested,and I will be interested in some of the analyses. But I think it would be helpful if
.those were available.
Let me ask a question that may lead us into a little different line of discussion:
Salem 1 is operating. There is an emergency plan
.;e-Federal Reooners, Inc.'..
25
- for the site?
- I,,
23 MR. S.MITE:
one of the s.i.gnificant.
i':::::~.. :3
- " ciiscussion L1at follm.;s froD Three Mile.
I guess Jersey dces have --
MR. SMITH: We were one of the five states, I understand, that has a plan which has been concurred in by the Commission.
CO.Mi'USSIONER AHE."'i.?~1\\lE:
Twelve states.
CR..~IRJ."1AN HENDRIE: Something like brnl ve.
But do you know offhand how far offsite your own emergency plan reaches in terms of contact with local emergency group leaders and so on?
MR. SMITH:
I don't have the details with me.
What I can tell you is that following the Three Mile Island accident, the Superintendent of State Police called representatives of the utilities in New Jersey together with the Department of Environmental Protection whic~
had the basic responsibility for drawing up the plan. Called 20 us down to Trenton to review the Three Mile Island incident.
21 As a matter of fact, New Jersey sent a couple of I'
22 !:
state policemen over to the Harrisburg site, who reported i'
23 ii directly back to Trenton.
2~
They are reexamining all the details of t~eir
,.;e-F ed.:ral R ~oorters, Inc.
25*
emergency plans, and there may be some proposed Dodifications
m:ffi23
- 1
' ~
1'
- i
- f
~ "
I 6 I I
I 7 ;I i
8 :i
'I 9 i
'I l l i I
12 !
' Ii 13 il ii
- 1 14 !l
'I
.I 15 :
.f 16 i I
17 :
fi 24 in those plans as a
result of that exanination and as a result of the experience at Three Mile Island.
We do have a whole series of people to call £~on the station and we are now getting state police even more involved. They appear to want to take the principal role in the administration of this plan.
They want to be called first now.
They want to know now also any event that occurs, whether it is an emergency event o~ not; they want to know when the plant is shut down, when it comes on line-.
So they have taken a very active interest in the whole operation.
MR. ECKERT:
Perhaps anoth~r response to your question as far as distance is concerned,the first town is I think, about 4 1/2, 5 miles away.
And it is a small town.
But they are involved in the emergency plan. How much further out than that it goes, I don't know. The next town is out between 8 and 10 miles. Very isolated there.
MR. SMITH:
The police, Dick, are going to all 18 :;
the towns in the surrounding area, visiting them, since 19 :
Three Mile Island and are reenforcing the whole evacuaqtion 20 plan.
21 CHAIR!-'lAN HENDRIE:
John?
l
- ' !l 22:,
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I want to ask either Ii 23 !:
Bill Lindsay or Frank Haines on the question of the 24 stability of the gr*id.
11*e*t'~it!ral Rt!porters, Inc.
25 :
Do you people look at that issue?
And, if you
25
'mm24 i :
have, do you have any comments?
~ "
MR. LINDSAY: We have looked at it a little bit from the standpoint that was mentioned here, namely that
~
under certain light load conditions -- there is a lot of 5
6
- /
7 :I I
8 j
- I I
- j 9 :i 10 !I 15 :
16,;
17 :
coal-fired generation in the western part of PJM, and of course light-load -- while in heavy-load conditions much of that is being used there, but as total load conditions fall, more of that is shifted to the East.
And so, under conditions of light load, it appears that there is a possibility of voltage control problems arising in the absence of more generation in the East, which is an economic problem because it could be replaced with oil and has to be.
MR. ECKERT: This may be a new problem we have to worry about, because it is not what we were referring to.
MR. SMITH: That is part of it, though.
MR. ECKERT:
That is part of it.
The very heavy 18 :i loads, however, with outages in the southern part of the 19 state, both transmission and an outage from closing Salem 1 2c under a worst condition, could get into a low load situation 21 in the southern part of the state. And I think that is what
- i 22 i\\
Bob was ref erring to, not a low load.
23 :,
CHAIR..~N HENDRIE: Frank, you had a hand up.
2-l MR. HAINES:
I simply wanted to observe that
.:tl-f'tlderal Reporters. Inc.
25 yesterday we went.and looked at the transmission system and i:
mnf25
.I it is on the 500 kv ring that they have.
26 It has a major 2 ;!
generating ring that goes around their load and it is right J.1 on it.
~ I
.1 !
COMMISSIONER AHEAR.~E: Another question to either I
51 of the two of you.
I, i
6 1 The State of New Jersey, as well as the company
.1
?ii has just indicated an estimate of 500,000 barrels of oil,
'I,,
8 ;\\
so this is roughly 10 percent for national use, and this is
- I 'i 9 ii roughly 10 percent df that.
Does that sort of jibe with 10 your numbers?
11 MR. HAINES: (Nodding affirmatively) 12 MR. LINDSAY: Yes, sir, it does.
1311 MR. ECKERT: The 500,000 barrel figure was 14 ::
quoted by Stuart Eizenstat.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
45,000 is a 10 percent 16 i level -- is at 100 percent capacity level.
So I was 17 :
wondering what the 500, 000 is.
A similar 18 ::
MR. ECKERT: That is a net
~ !
i9 ;
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But that is a real number 2C as opposed to 100 percent is a theoretical upper bound.
21 1;
And that is really what I was trying to ask.
22 ii MR. FOWLKES: Excuse me.
The numbers that I 1'.
i*
23 :.
got from PJM indicated the 45, 000 barrels a day was based 24 :'
on an 80 percent operation of Salem No. 2.
That is what
,"\\l*fe.jeral R.;porters, Inc. "
25 :*
I was told.
'* I
rmr.,26 27 COMJ.'1ISSIONER K2NNEDY: Would you go over that
.I 2,
again?
- 1 I
J MR. FOWLKES: The 45,000 barrels a day shortfall
~
not shortfall, but increased usage without Salem No. 2, it 5
was indicated to me that that was based on an 80 percent 7
I 8 *I
- j 9 i operation for the Salem No. 2 unit, capacity factor I'm talking.about now.
MR. SMITH: Our number is more conservative.
MR. ECKERT:
I am sure the 45,000 by our numbers
- is with 100 percent capacity.
MR. SMITH:
There are two other factors which I didn't mention, \\~ich perhaps have some bearing.
One is that -- and I know this -- Public Service has a responsibility for engineering design construction
- I 15 ::
of Salem 2.
We have our own in-house engineering staff 16 !
that did that. So all the people who have direct relation to 17 i:
that design are in house and always available. We are not 18 ::
depending on some architect-engineer who has maybe thr8e 19.
or four other plants to worry about, to look into some of 20 these things on Salem.
The other thing which I think is public informatior.,
GPU has contracted with Philadelphia Electric for Philadelphia Electric's share of the Salem 2 output, so you have got a situation here where GPU would actually be helped if Salem 2 c">l-Fe-Jeral Reoorters, Inc.
25
- was in service.
- j
e e
28 ffi{U 2 7 MR. EVERETT: For about 8 to 10 years.
2* :
COMJ."vlISS I00!ER A.HEARNE:
Would that be all?
3 *i ' '
You are saying Philadelphia Electric doesn't 4
really need --
5 MR. EVERETT: The capacity at this time.
6 I
- I 7 ij 8
- 1
- I
'I And with other changes in our system, completion of Limerick 1 and 2, we won't need this capacity for about 8 or 10 years.
9.I ii
!I 10 11 ii 11
!I 12 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Just to make sure I have that --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What is the state on Limerick l?
MR. EVERETT:
It is about 50 percent complete as
- l 13
- 1 1!
far as construction is concerned.
14 ij ii COMMISSIONER A.HEARNE: It had been several numbers i
15
- 1
!)
of reserve margin, but I gather without trying to get involved 16 *:
in which number is the accurate one, I think you mentioned 17 :i that even without Salem this surru~er you are going to have 18 "
a --
19 MR. SMITH:
We couldn't argue the case on the 20 basis of lack of capacity.
21 MR. EVERETT: We have been concerned with the
- l i:
2~ ;i possibility of a shortage in number 2 oil, which we use 23 ::
for peaking, combustion oil. And our suppliers have offered 2~ :*
us none on the spot market. We do depend occasionally on the
- t?*tcedt?ral Reporters, I 11c.
25 :'
spot market for purchase of that type of oil, so we have
mn;i28
'I !I 29
~ !
- 1 curtailed the use of those kinds of machines during peaking 2 I t:
so far, but we really haven't had any peaking weather at 3
this point in the sununer.
I I
4 I So that one could go either way.
If we cannot use I
5 i I
the combustion turbines or must limit their use, then we 6 j may have a larger problem than we think at the present time.
I
,J 7 :I Ji That's about all we can say.
i,,
8 i I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
So, the power pool 9 i
.1 presu.~ably establishes some sort of capacity responsibility 10 ii for each of the companies within it.
As of what date does I
l l ii the power pool presently allow you to count Salem 2 against
' i 12 I
' j your capacity responsibility?
I 13 H MR. EVERETT: If I understand your question right, ii ;t 14 !1,,
it can't be counted until it is dispatched. That means it
.i 15 has to be in commercial operation, it has to be turned over 16 for day-to-day dispatching purposes to the system operator 1:
17 and the PJM operator.
18
,1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: So it is not counted at all 19 I
in the power pool's -- your projections through the summer?
20 '
MR. SMITH:
It is in the forecast, but it is 21 not available.
't 22 !:
i,,
COMMISSIONER BR~DFORD: It is not part of what 23 !;
they are considering and relying on until sometime out 24 1
towards the end of the year.
'"~ *F~deral Reporters. Inc.
25.',,
I I ~
MR. SMITH: We haven't changed the date yet.
29*
- 30.
CHAifillAN HE~DRIE: What was the date, by the way?
2*,!
MR. Si11ITH: The date was, for commercial opera tier.
J
- on the system, in June?
. j 5
6 :I I
7 !I ii
- t 8,j 1j 9 d ii i
l 0 !
I I
11 !
I 12 !
i i
]3 I 14 15:
16.
MR. ECKERT: The end of June.
MR. SMITH:
Commercial or:e.ration would be three to four months after then.
It would be putting power -- we make an estimate of when it is going to go on line.
We get into 10 percent for so long and 30 percent for another period.
It is about a five-month schedule to get from the operating license up to 100 percent power test, and during that period it is on there for varying loads.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see. Did you say the machine is, in your view, ready for an OL now?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
CHAIRJ.\\1.AN HENDRIE:
And I guess the Staff now MR. ECKERT: There are a few minor things that 17 are resting with Staff.
18 i:
~ i
- i 19 some --
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- and I&E will have to complete MR. ECKERT:
I believe that completed everything.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Can you run through those five months for me?
23!;
You said it was 10 percent for one period of 2-1 :
time, then 30 percent for another?
.:e*f-P.J~rat Aeµorters, Inc. :
MR. SMITH:
If you assume a July 1 operating licer.se.
mm.30 3
I I.
' q
'I I
31
- .; *"- *
- : h t.
.MR. S ~*H TE:
Prepare for c=~ticality July 12.
Initial criticality August 16.
s; Prepare for ;2~~~2t~r synchro~ization August 16.
6 *j*
- I
'I 7 :!
I 8,j i
9,I
,j 10 :1
'I 11 11 11 15 '
fl I
16 :j
~ !
Initial generator synchronization August 29.
10 percent power testing August 29.
30 percent power testing September 4.
50 percent power testing September 19.
Planned outages September 28.
Startup to 75 percent power October 9.
75 percent power October 14.
90 percent power October 31.
100 percent power November 8.
Commercial operation November 23.
c*OM.'ll.1ISSIONER BRADFORD: With outages during that 17:!
period?
18 '!
MR. SMITH: Just one outage.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Just one outage.
i 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Other questions?
21,;
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If I could return to
! ~
22 !I 1:
this point about the water level.
I don't don't know what the meanest intellect is.
If I recall correctly, Harold 2-t:
Denton said n.e wanted those in before he gave out any more
.~e-reoeral Reoorters, Inc.
- -----------~---... - --
- -~------- ----
~--* -
., ____ -----~----------.
"H:.
~.) '.
i:
operating licenses.. If I am wrong about that, I hope someDc::.*:
mmJl
.i I
- i
'i I
L 6 I l 1 !
12 i
I i
' ' ii 13 il.,
- i.
14 ij I,
I 32 will check ____ i_n to_ __ tb.a t and correct me.
-*------*--*~* -----~ ~
. -** - ~**-*-* -.. -
MR. ECKERT: In order to install this it will require new materials that will have to be ordered once it is decided what to install, in time, on nuclear grade 1 equipment, can be measured in a year or so, not in a ~eek o~
so.
I see no way that such equipment could be ordered, installed first of all, design approved in a short period of time.
The lead time for these things is very lengthy because of all the manufacturing requirements, qualifications.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Did I recall correctly?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I don't recall that.
MR. ECKERT: The contact that we have had with Harold Denton indicates what he wanted to do is try to f irrn 15 :J up whether it would be done, and then set a schedule to do it, ii ii
- 1 16 11
'I d
17 il because of his recognition of the long lead time.
And with the water level as mentioned, the two-18 :;
phase operation of water power, it makes it questionable :
19 if this is an advisable thing to do.
The information I was 20 giving you earlier was if it is decided that indeed this 21 is the right thing to do, these are the radiation areas we
- 1; it 22 ii would be working in to do it.
23 i COMMISSIONER AHE.:\\RNE: When you said whether 11 this 2--1 is the right thing, 11 did you mean a particular design you
- e-Federal Reoorters, Inc.',
25 are considering, or the concept at all?
I_
I
I I
I !
2 ;;
ii
- 1 3 :
-1 5
6 7 ii ii
!I 8
11 9 ij 1 o I I
I 11 17 :!..
18.,
33 MR. ECKERT: The concept at all.
MR. EVERETT: Whether or not this instrument woi..:ld anything useful. That is an important question.
I hope we don't ignore it.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You are saying whether or not a measurement of water level in the reactor vessel will tell you anything useful at all?
MR. EVERETT:
It is normally seldom it will tell you anything, even in an emergency.
I think that is a good question that should be answered very explicitly before we begin.to tag things on to these systems.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I guess when you say it should be answered, then you don't accept the current like ACRS reconunended --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I must say I didn't hear anything like this raised when we were up before the Congress and had the ACRS here.
It may be right.
I don't 19 know what the right answer is.
20.*
MR. ECKERT: We are waiting for the Staff to look 21 ;.
.very hard at this. And they are not sure it is a useful 22 !I evaluation.
I:
- 1 23 il It has not been resol \\t"'ed.
I 2-l CHAI&'l.AN HENDRIE: I talked to some of the Staff
,,;.f-ecleral Rt!1>0ners, Inc.
25.*
people who are engaged in it. There are some pretty good te.:...
. l~
34 rnm33
~
arguments going on; people trying to understand the various 2
transient situations in which it would give you a meaningful 3
level, and if it would, why that would certainly be good, and 4
5 6;
7!
I a:
I 91 I i
10 I I
l l I i
12 I I
13 21 :1 I
22 rl I*
23 ii I' ![
24
1' re-Federal Reporters, Inc.*;
25 :i
'r I!
- 1
- i try to sort out when it might mislead you if you didn't understand the nature of the beast and so on.
I think at Three Mile there were some times there when the pumps turned off and things were sort of sitting and just steaming quietly, when it sure would have been valuable if the water level gauge would have indicated that you wanted
.to do some things which I would have thought might have been done anyway.
But on the other hand, there are a number of situations where you have that flow, and maybe even as low as natural circulation flow where you want to look and see what you want to get as a reading on that.
COMJ.~ISSIONER AHEARNE: You are discussing not so much the question of whether it would be valuable to have an accurate measurement, but whether it is feasible to develop a device that gives you an accurate measurement.
CHAIRM.2;.N HENDRIE:
Feasible in the sense of puttini:;
a tap on the top and a tap down here, and you read that differential.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, it doesn't tell you the water level.
It tells you how much water is in there.
MR. EVERETT: That is pressure differential.
ii
!I
- I
) d L
\\*,,
12 :
13 t1
~ t
'I 14 ::
Ii ii 15 ;!
i ;;
! ~
differential which may differences.
(Siraultanecc3 iisc~~sion.)
Cm1l\\USSIONE?..'\\2.:S;'-*.?.:i=:: I '.-,-ould guess this is an interesting, but differe~t -.
c~2..:.:::cu~slon.
MR. EVERETT: If you had a once-through boiler under the accident conditions, you can postulate. And if you have a dynamic once-through boiler you have got to figure out just what that measurement really means.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
I think there is a fair possibility that we will want to see something along this line because we will decide on balance it will be useful to have.
On the other hand, there is still some sorting out of the arguments one way or the other.
I don't want anybody to interpret my comments 16 :1 this morning as saying here I think it is a bad idea.
I 17 '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: How about this afternoon?
18 ::
CHAI&"1AN HENDRIE: This afternoon. It is a longer 19
- day than I thought.
20
-- Or, that I am advocating.
I am just saying 21 there are some aspects that need to be sorted out before we go off.
i, 23 ;,
Now the general question of accurate fluid condi-2J tion throughout the system obviously there are better ways
- )" 'i
""".. ~ !
we can devise to know that, and the better off we will be.
i.'
I 1.,
- i I
I
.j I I
- 5.
'I 6 !
i ll 7 'i I
- 1 14 ;
1 c: ;*
I
- i 17 :
18 ;
19 20 21 ii 22 it 23 ::
re*i'e,;eral Reporters, Inc.
25
- 1.
36 differential pressur2,
~u:,*~1
- <~*O'.*.',
j:..:,*;t hig-:-.-::..m-1 tapping and then inferring what ths pressure differe~ces mean, is meaning not so clear to me.
Well, other questions?
MR. EVERET':::': r*!r. Chairman, may I ask a question?
COM1'.USS ION:SR KE~r:-:iEDY: Why not.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We don't always expect an answer when we ask a question, and I am sure you don't always expect an answer when you ask a question.
MR. EVERETT:
I was concerned to read that part of the reason for the holdup in issuing licenses -- if not the whole reason -- was lack of manpower resources because of the co:mmi tment of the Commission Staff to T~H analysis.
And I would think that the economics, if it is economics and safety, are certainly a judgment factor that you have to make on the site of safety.
But, if it is a manpower shortage that the Commission faces, there ought to be resources in this nation that the economics would dictate we can utilize to help out in that.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But Y9~. qo __ take.. into consideration the possibility that there might be so~e other things other than economics, that might be driving the Staff to be concerned with perhaps taking
.<.l
- . ;*-- *-itlm3 6
- 1
'I
- 1 37 J 1 recognize that that ~.. JC.2 2.n c-*..-e.r:::::-idin.g f.:;.ctcr.
COYJv1ISSIONEJ.
KE~~"'.:'E~Y: 3ut let me say to the extent 5
that the point you make is correc~, it is that in fact there 6 \\'
- j 7 ;:
I'
,I
- I 8,I
" i
- 1.,
9,I I!
19.
20 is a manpower shortage, and to the extent that that drives
_,_, ~---.. -----***...
~_...~.........,. __,. ___....
the question, let me say that I agree with you there ought to be resources in this nation wni ch can ]:)e ___ l;:>_~_Q}.,lgh_t;:_,,:t_g~b-~ar to solve it.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't think it applies though in this case, because the Staff has given higher priority to those systems that are closer to completion.
- ..,~. ____, ___.J.. *-* _.._........... _
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There are a half dozen plants that are close, and Unit 2 at Salem is the lead unit in that trend, and I think the Staff resources, as Vic says, will be
...,....,.__.....,.... ~.--..;..... -.... -**.* * *.* *** *-~ ****--..c
- -. -.***._.:,.-_J.t.*._,,- *.
- focused on those ready and_ near-ready un~ t_s.
So, I think it is considerably less of a problem for the plant, for the unit that we are talking about here, than it is in general.
In general, in fact, we have a severe Staff 21 resource problem and are taking steps to try to help that as
.--........,, _____.., -....... ---~-------*-.. --~----**-,_,.__..... ~---***------*-*-.
22 fast as we can.
23;*
MR. EVERETT: The nation has tremendous technologica~
2..t ';
resources as you all know at the national labs, Oak Ridge,
.cr.-Federal Reporters. In.;.
25, Argonne, Savannah River and I'm sure you haven't overlooked
L
.... ___.~... _,..
22 that.
')
CF..AIRNAN HENDRIE: We have been in those discuss..:.c::.::.
COM1'HSSIONER AHEARNE: We haven't overlooked tha.':.
~
BUt I am sure you also recognize there was a very major I
I 5' I accident, and for whatever reasons it did happen, and there
-. ~ -*** _____...... "" _____... ____,.. ___ ~-~--.-'-***-**---*--...-*-----*..
6:
is a lot of understanding that has to be developed.
~-------.. *-*--***-*---*-----------*------- -
MR. EVERETT:
I don't mean to minimize a:
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It is possible for some o=
9:;
the comments to be interpreted as that perhaps you were 10:
minimizing it.
I, 11 :1 COMMISSIONER AHEARJ.'JE: I certainly don't think I
12!
you were minimizing it, not in the least.
I 13 !1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Other comments?
11
- j 14 !
(No response) 15 ;
Thank you very much, and we thank our colleagues 16 *i from FERC and the Energy Resources Administration
- j 17,;
Regulatory Adnlinistration, I'm sorry.
'.i 13 i (Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing in 19
- the above-entitled matter was adjourned.)
20.
21.!
22 Ii I:
I] ;;
'-* i:
2-t :
\\1e-r-~0eral Reporter>, In.:
25 I
~ i