ML19241A637
| ML19241A637 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1979 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7907090015 | |
| Download: ML19241A637 (22) | |
Text
'.
_ j :~/
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C
s" IN THE MATTER OF:
PRIEFING.ON SHUTDOWN - PIPE STRESS ISSUE AT BEAVER VALLEY
(-
~
Washington, D. C.
Place -,
Date -
Wednesday, 30 May 1979 Pages 1-20 T.i.chenu:
(
(:c:)wa7 o ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
Official Reponers (9[)
xt Ah Ncch Cecitel Street
~~~j l5 Weshingten. D.C. OCC01 7907090 N ATIONWlOE COVERAGE. D AILY 310 297
-apc.
1 v
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States
-May 30, 1979 in the Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission held on Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies,
- e The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the for=al or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or belief s.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
310 298
2 i
j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
5076 i
~
I
..affman jeri 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3'
I i
N l
4l
!c' BRIEFING ON SHUTDOWN
~
i 6l pud STRESS ISSUE AT BEAVER VALLEY i
I 7
Room 1130 3
1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
9 10 Wednesday, 30 May 1979 11 The :ennission met, pursuant to notice, at 1:50 p.m.
12 !
BEFORE :
's 13 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner I
14 RICHARD T.
KENNEDY, Commissioner PETER A. BRADFORD, Cor=nissioner 15 ALSO PPISENT:
i 16 D. Eisenhut l
17 !
W.
Russell l
H. Denton 1G L. Gossick L. Bickwit I9 l
20 I
21 22 23,
21, A T Eedef 38 Recor'ers, leC.
C 25 310 6e,9s a
3 CR,5076 ECEDR'I:jwb
- 6 P_ _R O. _C E E _D _I N _G _S l
tl, s
i (1:50 p.m.)
j 2l 3l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Shall we come to order?
l l
1 4l Sorry to be late.
The first item on the agenda this afternoon i
as I planned it is some discussion of the seismic design 5
6' matters.
The agenda. item is labeled " Pipe Stress Issue at i
I Seaver Valley."
I think in fact, since Beaver Valley is 1
7 not really before us in any sense here, this is more a status 3
I report on the seismic reanalysis matter.
9 I'm going to give the staff a chance to bring you jo 11 up to date as to how they' re coming along, and mention a few of the elements of the reanalysis that are going on.
I would 12 expect this portion of this af ternoon's meeting not to run
(
17 14 all that long, because it is in the nature of a status report rather than some sort of action meeting where we would want 15 i
i 16 to discuss it extensively.
With that sort of reamble, will you please go l
I 17 18 ahead, Lee?
19 Mr..
GCSSICK:
Harold?
20 MR. DENTCN:
Let me start by mentioning the Maine reactor which we permitted to resume operation.
They have a 21 22 prcblem with leaking pump seals, so they are not actually in 23 operation today.
There are four plants still shut down, and Darrell 24 Aca 4cerat 9ecorwrs, Inc.
25 '
Eisenhut and Bill Russell will tell you the status of our 310 300
6-2,jwb 4
l i
l l
1 review of those four.
1 l
2l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Very good.
I I
3l Welcome,Darrell.
Welcome, Bill.
r 4!
MR. EISENHUT:
Thank you.
u l
5!
On April 26th, we gave you a briefing of the status 6,
on the five shutdown plants that Mr. Denton just mentioned.
t 7
There's the four besides Maine Yankee remaining.
Also at the time we estimated Beaver Valley's evaluation --
5 9
that is, the licensee's estimate of when they would have 10 completed their reanalysis.
The completion date was estimated 11 at May 6th.
t 12 Obviously, it's about a month.later.
The evaluation i
13 is still not completely finished.
We 'll be su=mari::ing for you I
and go th cush the reasons and the problems m'm run into since that period ja 15 o f ti.~e.
Also at that time we estimated that Surry 1 would i
16 be completed by May 28th.
We now estimate that Surry l's l
1 I
17 evaluation will be completed by the licensee and submitted to la !
us by June 15th.
l l
i i
19 !
Also, the Fit:: patrick es 11uation at that time was I,
i 20 '
estimated to be about June 20th.
Our slide here today, you I
21 will see, shcws June 10th.
It hasn't really changed.
In 22 fact, that is somewhat of an optimistic schedule.
22 '
What we'd like to do is to just very briefly 24 ' su=mari::e the situation we have with Seaver Valley, which A
aceral RecorTers, Inc.
25 we are projecting to be one of the next plants that 310 30i
5 6-3.jwb i
l i
1l we'll be coming ce: ore you with for your accroval.
l l
-~
I 2
And with that, Bill Russell will actually go r
3!
through the situation as it presently stands on Beaver Valley.
t 4i MR. RUSSELL:
Can I have the first slide, please?
l 5
(Slide.)
This is a slide which you've seen before.
We've i
6' 7
taken Maine Yankee off.
This was -- as indicated previously, there are 83 safety-related piping problems to be analyzed.
S 1
l i
9 Those analyses are complete, and three of the piping problems 10 require modifications of hardware.
11 Those modifications involve addir snubbers to the I
12 lines, and reenforcing the piping at a branchline connection 12 where a smaller line joins in with the larger line.
'q 14 Additionally, there were 18 problems which were 15 analyzed in 1977 for water: hammer events.
These were analyzed 16 for the combination of water hammer, plus safe shutdown 17 earthquake, using the code "New Pipe."
They had not used 18 them for the operating basis earthquake with the New Pipe 19 code.
They were originally analyzed with the Shock 2 Code, 20 which is a code using the algebraic summation'.
The licensee l
if he can draw is going back and Icoking at those new to see 21 1
any conclusions as to whether reanalysis is required because 22 23 of the operating basis earthquake considerations.
24 One has been reanalyzed, and that h s been fcund Nfdefti R ecor+pfs, Inc.
25 to be within alicwable.
In general, we would expect that the 310 302
6 6-4.jwb 1
i I
1!
combination of water hammer with safe shutdown earthcuake m
i I
2l would be limiting and confined to the pipe such that we are j
I
\\
3:
not anticipating problems in that area.
1
_s l
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let =e ask you, would you l
~
4 1
i take us back to the results that we had when we dealt with j
I 5
l 6;
this issue on Monday, as I remember, or Tuesday?
Were the j
i i
I stresses that we had at that point wrong?
71 MR. EISENEUT:
Yeah, I think so.
I think the 8
0 l
information we've had back in March showed that the s tresses I
9 i
10 that were being estimated were coming out -- large factors; l
i 11 factors anywhere from =aybe 6 to 10 times the allowable.
I I:
l 12 As it turns out, one of the biggest problems on i
i I
s 13 Beaver Valley was, as I recall, the use of incorrect, as-I 1
14 built drawings.
That is, they were really analyzing the i-1 15 situation which physically was not the actual situation that 16 existed in the plant.
17 When they went back and came up with the actual 18 plant layout and reanalyzed the situation, they found that 19 the stresses were much lower.
20 ;
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Darrell, how carefully dc 21 vou all verifv values?
Is this another form of 22 j disbelieving instruments?
Is 4-i "act co~~~ ~".at it was the i
23 design that was wrong, and the plant was 'cuilt differently?
24 Or is than j ust sc=ething the licensee is saying now?
Ac...c r e a.oo c m.inc.,
MR. EISENHUT:
I think not.
This, cf course, is a 310 303
7 6-5'jwb
,l l
~
j i
generic question we've been looking at on all the plants
~'
1 t
l 2l that we're looking at under the algebraic summation.
The i
1 i,
i situation is that basically the drawings that were in use
~
3 r
1 When we physically did not represent what was in the plant.
i 4
l 1
i 5
analyzed what was in the plant, they turned out all righ..
i l
6!
COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
But wouldn' t there be a i
l 7;
set of engineering drawings that corresponded to the plant t
3 in the "as built" condition?
i l
9l MR. EISENHUT:
Yes, there should be.
However, as 10 time goes on, there are modifications to the plant during the construction process when they' re initially constructed.
i 11 :
12 !
They're being refined, coming up to the final design.
There's
(
13 often some fine tuning of the systems.
I 14 '
For example, one of the plants, it turned out i
l i
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Con't they reflect those 4
16 in drawings?
17 MR. EISENHUT:
Yes, hhey should.
It turns out 18 ln this situation, some of them did not.
19 :
So that brings up another area we've been lccking i
20 '
into.
And what we've been doing on all of the other plants i
21 recently that used an algebraic summatien method, even in sc=e 22 limited portion, we've been asking them to go back and 23 reverify that in fact they're using "as built" drawings.
24 That is, they go out and physically look in the plant.
ACS-E9dwal A eOCrMft, IFC.
25 We've also asked I&E to independently verify that
]
310 304
8 6-6.jwb
\\
t I
i
~
1 that is in fact the case.
They have gone out to plants, to 2l the piping that is available, and see even when the plant is l
l 3
operating.
They have looked at it.
l l
4' On some of the plants we are finding scme problems.
S t MR. DENTON:
In these particular plants, we did inspect -- compare the diagrams that were being analyzed 6
7 against the actual "as built" plants.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Recently?
9 MR. DENTON:
Only recently.
And it does appear 10 that there was a f airly widespread -- from going back and 11 correcting the drawings, to the actual way the plant was 12 built, because they couldn' t put a hanger here, they had to 13 move it some other place due to interference; they had to move i
6 14 it along the way.
There may have been a field change that 15 never got reflected back in the records.
l l
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How serious are the 17 implications of that for situations other than earthquakes?
18 Supposing you in fact Tad an accident of one sort or another 19 in the plant?
Doesn't it begin to matter quite a lot, once I
i 20 !
you can't get into the containment, that the drawings be I
21 '
accurate?
i l
22 l MR. DENTCN:
The location at which you hang it sort 22,
of determines the frequency at which the pipe line breaks.
24 gimilarly __
Aor-Neral Rooornrs, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER 3RACFORD :
Just as a generni matter, 310 30e3
9 6-7.jwb l
I l
1 earthquakes aside.
^
I 2 !
MR. DENTCN:
You could get into problems.of jet i
I l
l 3l forces and danger loadings.
4 MR. GOSSICK:
The level of instruments and the 5
water.
I 6'
COMMISSIO.
.3ADFORD:
Well, that sort of thing.
i I
I was th aking more of the kind of thing that you have some 7l s
questions about at Three Mile Island now, where things are i
9 in the containment.
10 MR. EISENHUT:
The principal reason for having the 11 hundreds and hundr=ds of pipe supports, pipe snubbers, the 12 snubbers basically therefore are earthquake loadings.
That's 13 one of the primary reasons that it's there.
x 14 It has, of course, another consideration on pipe 15 breaks, as you mentioned.
And we are contemplating it right I
i 16 now in the more generic look at all of the plant responses l
17 to the I&E bulletin that was put out.
18
.We may well be issuing another bulletin very scon l
19 which says that each plant should go out and reverify that 20 ;
they have a set of
".9 built" drawings at the plant, and in i,
21 fact if they don' t have them they should go do them by sc=e 22 period of time.
22 '
So that is where we're coming out.
Because we've 24 been finding scne anomalies.
We've got another plant -- not se..:w.rai secomn. inc.
25 one of these five, for example, we just looked at.
We found 310 306
10 3,
I.
6-8.jwb l
l I
i i
1 some few items, it turned out, out of the 15 or 20 anomalies l
I 1
2; from the "as built."
Most of them are not sicnificant.
l l
l 3
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is there any requirement at
,i
_s i
the present time that safety-related systems be fully 4 I 5
documented?
6 MR. EISENEUT:
I think there is.
It certainly can I
7' be read that way.
That's the legal interpretation.
It's my 5,
interpretation of what our requirements would be.
I 9
MR. DENTON:
Ay own impressior. was that the QA 10 systems were much bette:
&an they turned out to be for this 11 class of plant.
12 MR. RUSSELL:
There is one. area that I think should
(
13 be expanded on, also.
14 In addition to the as-built differences and the 15 fact that over that weekend we looked at some preliminary i
16 drawings and drawings which were not updated for subsequent 17 field modifications, the differences that existed between the 18 Code Sheck 2 that was used, and the code that was used for l
reanalysis, Shock 3, were essentially different codes.
19 i
20 '
That ic, it was not just a matter of cha.nging the 21 '
algebraic summaticn.
Some of the differences we were seeing 22 we can't categorize exactly where, what piece of this icng 23 ]
chain caused the differences we were seeing.
"As built' seems i
2d to be the major contributor, but there were other things that v.ceras aeoomn. inc.
2c were involved -- dirrerences in tne coce -- and it mat.e s it 310 307 E
11 6-9 jwb l
l 1
very c.Lfficult to say that this much of an increase is due to i
^
l 1
2l the algebraic summation problem, and this much is due to the i
i I
3l "as built" condition.
You just can't pin that down, i
sl MR. DENTON:
Another point to bear in..and is 4
i i
3.
Surry, for example.
If Surry had stuck with the same code l
6l that had been used when the plant was first approved, they i
I would have had to make a lot more changes than are indicated.
l 7:
l 1
s!
But they went to a state-of-the-art method across the board i
l i
and started back from scratch and redid a whole structural 9
10 interaction, and all the way Grough the building they had new codes.
And that sharpering of the pe.Wis today indicates the system's jj l
1 passed, whereas it would not have passed if we'd stayed with 12 -
.-scme of the codes that were in vogue at the time.
13 It really isn't clea; where those first numbers 14 I
i 15 which we acted on car.e from, and to what extent new in the l
i complete reanalyses that have gone on, where Beaver Valley 16 I 17 i was the first tia:e.
i la You know, the lis we had at the time we thought 19 were all right, Se numbers for Heaver Valley.
Tha*. just 20 i started all over again, a whole set of new numbers.
i COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
I assume in allowing what 21 i
we call " sharpening of the pencils," using.cdern apprcaches 22 23 in a consisten: way, so that it wasn't jus' a matter of picking 24 out?
Ace-4:erai 4ecorurs. W. ;
MR. OENTON:
That was one of our first concerns, 23.l a
310 308
12 6-10 jwb 1
1 t
I I
1 They have proposed an approach which, if we had adopted, j
~
I would have just made by inspection all the systems pass.
2'1 i
i l
1 3
And if we ever get into a lot of our review of Surry and l
l 4l Beaver Valley, we did in f act make several changes on the l
I S'
codel.
l.
6:
MR. RUSSELL:
The piping stresses, in general 7;
what we've seen on reanalysis is not the area where the it's S.
major work effort and the major reanalysis is being done; I
9 in the area of the supcorts -- the snubbers and the pipe 10 supports.
11 Ca Beaver Valley tberc are 741 supports associated 12 {
with the 83 eiping problems.
Thus far, 623 have been 13 reanalyced a r.
found to be within allowables for those 14 supports, or within the original design.
15 have been 15 identified ac requiring modificatien at this point.
And there ;
i I
16 are some 103 that have to be looked at.
17 ;
Of those 103, the licensee feels he will be able i
I 18 to make a technical story as to why modification would not be 19 expected to be required.
20 There is scme period of time required to do that.
21 He is hoping to approach those en a generic basis
_th -
I t
22 technic;tl basis to resume operation before those las l':
are 22 completely reanalyced.
24 With respect to oode verification, the codes tha:
ac, ;w:.ni a ecomn, i,c. ?
25 are used for the reanalysis, we're using the codes Shock 3 and 310 309
13 6-11 jwb i
i i
i a
~
1 New Pipe SW.
These are the same ccdes which were reviewed I
I l
2 i and approved on Maine Yankee.
We have revicwed the ccde i
l 3
listings.
We're doing henchmarking, sample problem analyses, j
t f
4; and we're doing independent analyses on each one.
l l
1 We are confident that those codes cre accurate and 5
i 1
6i provide accurate results.
7l Over the last two months, the major area of staff I
ef fort has been involved in an area called the " soil structure i
g i
I 9!
interaction."
This discussion is applicable to both the I
i 10 l Surry situation and Beaver Valley.
I 11 In essence, soil structure interaction is a method 1
i i
i 12 ! which accounts for energy loss in the soil underneath the 13 site.
And this has a reduction of stresses in the piping and I
14 the support loadings.
The methods which were developed by 15 the licensee originally considered point values ior soil 16 j properties.
That is, they assumed a single value.
Because i
17 ;
they had not considered the variation in these values, we did i
18 not 1.new what the sensitivity of the analysis method was to 19 the single value that they selected.
t 20 The Staff requested that they provide additional i
information on the sensitivity of the methods to soil 21 22 properties.
We have reviewed thac and concluded ena-by 23 multiplying the enisting results by a factor of 1.2, we 24 can adequately account for variations in soil properties.
Ace Fecarv Recor*ers, Mc.
25 This is essentially a 20 percent increase.
We 310 310
14 6-12 jwb l
4 I
I 1j have approved this by letter of last Friday, such that we feel !
i I
I 2,
now that the mecheds that are being used on both Surry and on 1
3' Beaver Valley are appropriate and meet our current requirements!
i
/
I 4
The factor on Surry is 1.5, a 50 percent incrum i
i 5'
whereas, on Beaver Valley it was 1.2.
l I
i 1
I i
6 With respect to approving the methodologf for soil 7
structure interaction, they are using the same earthquake spectre and values, damping values, which were proposed in the 3
9 FSAR for the mits at the time they were licensed to be sure 10 that they were not selecting a part of the methodology that 11 provided conservatism, and to look at the whola approach on I
12 balance.
13 We required that they go back and make some
(
14 comparisons be_aeen the Reg Guide 1.60 spectre, using Reg 15 l. Guide 1.61 damping values, and carry thr: igh the soil structure :
16 interaction analycis methods to show us that what they are 17:
doing would be in f act compatible with today's requirements.
18 They have done that, and we have determined that l
19 !
that is compatible.
So the answer to the question earlier:
1 i
20 Did they select a piece of tha analysis and treat that alone 21 without locking at the total analysis?
No, they did not do 22 that.
They went back and demonstr:ted thz.t their method was 23 consistent with methods which wculd be acceptable today.
24 In su= mary, I'd like to state that the licensee's Aw E9deral AtCCrteft,Inc.
25 reanalysis is not yet cc=plete.
He's anticipating submitting 310 51\\
i
15 6-13 jwb l
1
~
1l that to us on about the lith of June.
He's identified that l
2l he will start modifications to the 15 succorts, to add the i
l 3,
two snubbers, and to modify the piping for the branch line i
/
a' problem about the 4th of June.
And he anticipates having l
i 5;
that co=pleted about the firIt week in July, i
The Staff has reviewed, thus far, soil structure l
6' l
I 7l interaction analysis methods and codes, and we have found i
gl those acceptable.
i 9l In addition, we have reviewed the methods of hand t
10 l calculation which were used for that portion of the piping I
11 not done by computer analysis, and we found those acceptable.
The Staff Las yet to review the results of reanaly-12 l 13 sis, the actual sampling of the 83 piping systems which the 14 licensee reports is completed, and the sampling of the supports 1,
15 which he says do not recuire modification, and a review of 16 the supports which are going to be modified.
And that's pretty much the status on Beaver Valley 17 i
18 '
to date.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me see, Bill.
Tell me again 20 lbout the generic.
There were a group of items which you i
i proposed to conplete the analysis af ter application for 21 i
restart.
What were those, nca?
2',
23 MR. RUSSELL:
Those we.re associated with the ccde 24 verification.
We felt that once we saw the results of u.e-aerei neocmn. inc.
25 reanalysis and cetermined how much =argin there was in piping, 310 312
16 6-14 jwb l
l i
q 1i we could use taat as a judgment basis as to how much code i
2 verification had to be done before the plant restarted.
3l The shutdown has significantly lengthened.
We 4;
have completed code verification with the exception of one 5,
problem -- which is the two-loop reactor coolant system I
6!
problem, a very complex problem, running on different codes.
I l
All other steps of verification are done.
The i
7j i
S Staff has concluded that these are acceptable codes for using e-6 9
for reanalysis.
10 11 !
I 12 l
/
13 14 15 i
16 17 18 i
19 f, 20 21 :
1 22 22 24 Acs Feceral Reoorms. Inc.
$5 310 313 1
l l
CR 5076 47 DAV/pv 17 I
1 MR. EISENHUT:
In a basic nutshell, the licensee 2 expects to have the stuff'in, as Bill said, all the information, i
i 3l on June 11.
They'll be doing the scdifications and supports
/
i 4
to the one pipe up until the end of July.
We don't see any 5! reason, as long as he keeps submitting his information and con-i 6j tinues to participate in the meetings, we don't see any reason i
7 why we won' t be able to have our briefing dene. by this time also.
8 CCMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are you talking about sometime 9
in early July?
10 MR. EISENHUT:
We'd probably propose that cur review 11 would be ccmpleted sometime in June:
the latter part of our 12 review will be completed by the latter part of June.
13 MR. RUSSELL:
It will be helpful, and I will do this 4
for subsequent briefings:
We will add a new line en our status 15 chart, and that's the estimated startup date for the facility, i
16 as we see it.
Were we to do that new, the date for Eeaver Vallev 17 l; wculd be July 6.
We dcn't have a gced date for Fitrpatrick.
13 li June 10 for completien of analysis is a very optimistic date.
I i
19 They have not made much pregress on supports.
They are making 20 lscmemcdificationstothefacility.
l COMMISSICNER EENNEDY:
Are ycu going to talk about 21 i
22,that?
o 23 MR. RUSSELL:
What we're prcposing is when we Ocme 24 back later -- we don' t have current informacion on Fitcpatrick; AC9 892ff34 ASCOr'9r1,IFC, 25 we have r.cre informatica en Surry.
We vill be meeting with the 310 314
pv2 I
i 18 l
1 l
1 licensee on Surry.
And then on Tuesday of next week in Betherda, I
i 2,we hope to have a gced estimate on them.
i i
3l It is conceivable that the licensee's estimated date i
i 4
of the 15th would be abcut the time thev'd exeect to resume i
i i
l 5l operation.
They have not idencified --
1 6;
CCMMISSIONER 'GRIEDY:
June 15?
i l
i 7
MR. RUSSELL:
Yes, sir.
Surry has not yet identified 5
hardware modification as being necessary with the analyser being !
I 9' done to date.
10 CCMMISSICNER BRADFORD:
But their estimate of the i
l i
I II I completion of reanalysis can't be at the same basis on which f
12 l they' d review operation.
13 M2. RUSSELL:
Obviously, that doesn't consider time I
14 ; for staff review.
Yes, sir.
i i
15 l
MR. EISENHUT:
What he's saying is the date that 16 they would be ready, that they would have no modifications to be I
17l he'll be working with Fit: patrick's management over the done.
i 18 next week or so to try to pin dcwn scme firmer dates as to when 19' they really think they'll be able to get this job dcne And on i
20 i uhat kind of schedule.
21 '
MR. DENTCN:
We're providing the same level of 22 resources to all the applications.
The differences reflect that a
23 jl ccmpany's aggressiveness.
l 24 CHAIRMAN EEMDRIE:
Is Surry II a clcse macch cc Surry act i s:ersi aeooners, f c.
oc 3\\0 h\\e I, se f ar as we knCw?
3
pv3 19 l
MR. RUSSELL:
Yes, sir.
We would expect comparable results for Surry II, and a great majority of the analysis may l
2 Because of t be directly applicable frem the Surry I to Surry II.
i 3
7 their steam generator replacement outage, the licensee has not 4
I 5' directed any efforts to thac unit, and we just don't have that 6
type information.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You say unkncwn on Surry II.
7 You really don't kncw?
8 MR. RUSSELL:
We just haven't been working that part 9
10 of the problem yet, because in about six mcnths steam generator 11 replacement outage, the licensee requests we put the effort on 12 Surry I.
I COMMISSIONER KFNNEDY:
But meanwhile, they're doing 13 14 the analysis.
15 MR. RUSSELL:
Yes, sir.
And we expect a great majorit:
16 of that will be applicable frcm Unit I to Unit II.
l 1
MR. EISENHUT:
They're really not doing an analysis 17 l i
la on Unit II; they're just continuing on Surry I and hoping that 19 they can piggyback it.
CCMMISSIONER KJOINEDY:
- Yes, 20 -
i 21,
MR. EISENHUT:
That's basically all we were planning i
22 to ccver.
This, in a nutshell, is where we are tcday.
C'-IAIRMAN EE:IDRIE :
Ve q gccd.
23 24 Questions?
- co emere nemmes. soc.
25 (No re2ponse.)
310 316
pv4 I
20 i
I i
I i
1l CHAIPMI HENDRIE:
Could we move ahead to the second i
2l item on this afterncon's agenda.
I will have to ask you to join' 1
I 3 me in voting to hold a short-notice meeting.
':he ::cticn repasts -
1 1
4 to hear discussicn of the Jersey Central matter. ': hose ih famr say aye.
i i
5 (Chorus of ayes.)
6 CHAIRMAN EENDRII:
So ordered.
l 7
(Whereupon, at 2 :15 p.m., the meeting was adj ourned. ) i I
end#7 5'
i 9
j
}
10 l
11 12 '
i 13 1
I 14 15 '
16 I
i 17 j 18 19.
l 20 )
21 22 l
22 i 24 2c..;,eer. a comrs. me..,
25l 2
310 317
PIPIi1G REAt1ALYSIS STATUS REPORT AS -OF 5/29/79 8
SURR'.
SURRY
^
BEAVER FITZPATRIC',
VALLEY l
2 i
83*
96 72 REANALYSIS TO PERFORM COMPLETED WITHIN ALLOWABLE
~80 06 29
~
(QA ACCEPTED RESULTS)
COMPLETED ABOVE ALLOWABLE 3
0 0
(HARDWARE CHANGE REQUIRED)
PIPING SUPPORTS TO EVALUATE 741 1156 873 f
COMPLETED WITHIN ORIGINAL DESIGB 623 0
118 (QA ACCEPTED RESULTS)
______r_______
i COMPLETED ABOVE ORIGINAL DESIGN 15 0
'J
.(HARDWARE CHANGE -REQUIRED)-
6/10/79 6/15/79 REANALYSIS ESTIMATED COMPLETION gfr 79 DATE (LICENSEE ESTIMATE)
- PLUS 18 ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS WHICH WERE ANALYZED FOR WATE
- UNKNCWN
} } Q 3 } (d WTR/jm 5/29/79