ML19326C842
| ML19326C842 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1968 |
| From: | Wells A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Davies S ARKANSAS, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19326C836 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004280769 | |
| Download: ML19326C842 (32) | |
Text
. _ -
V f'" D,,
UNITED STATES
$j
.7i ATOMIC ENEliGY COMMISSION L-dD' ATOMIC SAFETY AND UCENGWG COARD
<,,,\\
y
' WASHINGTON. D.C. 20045 October 18, 1968 In the Matter of
)
)
DOCKET NO. 50-313 ARKANSAS PO17ER S: LIGIIT CO.
)
(Russellville Unit)
)
Mr. S. Ladd Davies, Director Arka'nsas Pollution Control Commission 1100 IIarrington Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
Dear Mr. Davics:
Reference is made to-your letter of October 10, 1968, in which you request an opportunity to make a statement in the course of the IIoaring in the matter of the Arkansas Power and Light' Company.
During the Prohearing Conference the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decided to permit you to make a Limited-Appearance in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 CFR, Part 2, Section 2.715 (a).
As you know, the Hearing is scheduled-to commence on October 30, 1968.
At an early stage in the IIcaring the tirne at which oral statements may be made. will be discussed.
Sincerely yours, f
( Q$;i.idb,, n
. A. Wells, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board 700421!TO'llf
'f
,1 S
g 0,5 S E U M.b O C
[v[4.9. d, mj\\
i d
1 A - h w,; w g d,3
\\
w%w w u m
- w
. w-w > ~ w s
.n O
/
I wonder, Dr. Quarles, if you would be willing to begin with your questions.
DR. QUARLES:
Yes.
As the Chairman has said, I am not trying to make these specific, but rather to alert the applicant and the staff to areas in which there will be 4
specific questions later on.
On page 17 and 18 of the staff's analysis you speak of a five-year period before radiation effects become critical in the pressure vescc1, and then indicate that there are means to mitigate the consequences of such failure if it should occur.
I would like some discussion of what means are available, how they would be applied after fivo ysars and why they cannot be takeh c
into consideration initially.
Why wait five years?
A general discussion of this whole aspect of it.
5
Ican'thelpbutcommentthatthestaff'sfileonh.e t
seems to be quite up to date, my tornado question is aircady in the staff analycis but I would like to know what critoria vill be used to dctormir.
if it is noccc:iary to cdd protecticp to the fuel storage pool and other criticci aspects of the a
~
~ ~ '
whole plant.
i
/
t m
4 f-sa
This may be directed towards the staff of the applicant and concerns off-site power abilability.
I would like some discu'ssion of just how indopondent the sources of A.
e off-sit power'may be, if they aro subject ~to any accident that could cause failure of all sourcos, a singlo accidant that could causo failure of all off-site powcr..
I believe criterion 39 talks about failure of one component.
In a recent case, a distinction was m&da 9
batuaan an active component and a passive component.
I would like some elaboration of why there needs to be any distinction between activo and passivo cogponents.
And in connection with this, the satea question, how reliable is the automatic selection of off-site power, is there adequate redundancy to be sure it will operate and if it vil' not porate under all conditions, what does the operatcr aisself do to take care of a failure of this automatic system?
A S.
s We are, concerned about quality c ntrol as most board scem to be and v.
a recent news item.has caused even tr. ora concern and we wonder what offect reported dolays may have on quality control.
We would like somo additional information on the qualifications of the hay quality control personnel.
And particularly to
\\
the applicant, who and his qualifications in ' the applicant's organization will havo the conpacace, has or will have the competence to./ pass on the parformanco of; contractors.
Tho applicant may delegate certain things, but he cannot delegate responsibility and therefore somebody in the applicant's organization should be qualified in this area and we would like information on who this is and what his qualificarions
\\
~
are.
2
1 3
^
s o
We also are concerned about this gas pipelina
'that gcos by the site and we wo 21d like a discussion of a possible rupturo of this gaa lino and the conacquences to the plant.
'To give you an idaa of what sort of thicq wa aie getting at hora, if the gas lina rupturas, it vill ecme out of the ground and whip around and undoubtedly there will be a firc.
Suppose this whippsd around so that the jet flamaa directed against the side of the reactor containment.
Ubat thon?
Another possibility that we would like discussed in cuppose unignitsd gas gots into the.vqntilating sysuem, what is the relation of the ventilating system of the entire plant to this gas line, both in its procent position and
.in any possible pocition the ends of the pipe may go when they break.
Unignited gas going into the ventilating system could blow up the whole outfit.
So I would like come assurance on the review c_ this particular type of hazard.
4 5
I
MR. BRIGGS:
I havo sovera]. questions here that are of~ interest to me. One, I would like to elaborate a little mors on tha ga<\\line problom.
It u"culd be intorecting to ma to know what accident was svaluated, what conditions woro considorod in the ovaluatica by the staff and it,3 concultants and also by the applicant.
'? hic p'ossibly will be the accident that Dr. -Quarlos has talked about, it might be a differont one.
e a
4 l
l l
4 e
4 4
5 6
=
s
^
I would lika to have information about tha prcsont otate of knculadge of the background radiction at tho site, how much this' backg;;ound ' can be a:cpcctad to be increaced by normal operation of the plant, and how these actiinatou of incroaca in background correspond to esperience in altisting nuclear power plants. '
0 9
4 e
t
??
I t
7 1
e
~ +
.N
" uccid 10.c to hncu
- omething about the e::porience that the designer cnd con-structor, if a constructor.has yet been colected, what their experience has been with prestrassed concreta vossolo and I would like to kncu in more detail about the pregram that is to be undortaken or' is being undartaken to quality the anchoreforthetensioningmoabers,andtoqualh.fytheanchors for the liners.
I would be intorested in knowing about the schodulb.for comolcting th'is work.
,/
l 4
F d
Y I-
?
a
..e i
4 r
g
'i
/
.. wesesse.,
.W 0n page 45 of the applicant's summary there is discussion of,the training program and of course further_, -
discussion in the application.
In here in one phase of the training it'is mentioned that there will be three to 6
five months training in an existing plant or on a simulator.
I would like to hava some iliscussion of the squivalence of traininginoperatingpkantsandsimulatortraining, the i
i relative m:rits of the two, and t, hat basis will be decided for A;hich hind of training will bc given, I cean
.u.t b,2. sis vill be cred fo:- d2ciding which kind of trainign wil.1. be givon.
Isnd what the rtaff considers to be adcquate training on simulators as opposed to training in an existing operating plant.
4 I
I 6
/
\\
e on page 29 of the staff analysis they discuss the containment spray system for resoving iodina.
I would like t
to have additional discussion :y the staff and by the applico.rp.
In particular, I uould like to hava discussion in como detail of the staff' ovaluation of the iodine removal fcctors for the Russellvillo containment spray sys' tam, what removdl factor is required, the staff's estimate of the degree of conservatisb in the iodino reduction factor that it calculate if and I would like to have the applicant's opinien of the degrog of conservatism involved, or that is obtainod in those calculatiqlns.
I would like to know in soma detail the additional RLD has
\\
required, who specifically will do the work, and the schedule for accompli.shing this work, what the critical problems are
, that could cause the spray system to prova inadcquate and whether there is really serious consideration being given to substituting charcoal alsorbors for the spray systela, and if so, what RCD is required for the charcoal absorption system or uhat,cvidenca we have that a design can be provided with demonstrated cortain4y of meeting the
\\
requirements for toduelig the icdinc concontration in the I
Russolivills plant.
10
4 I
.g
~
' C!!PIPJD.I! TTdLLS : '
no t a mis take'.
...Tho, That 10
~
questien that I had in mind about this is are theco datos reali.stic in light of peasible dolivery of preocure vassel and the supply of components and that kind of thing?
Ac I indicated, this is informal, but I think this,has an indirect relaticnship to the quality assurance question.-$! don't know
_.7
_how badly you are going to need the elec'dricity..in early 1972, but if you were going to need it very, very badly, this raises the question of how fast ycu and your contractors are goi.ng to have to work to get.it done and does the quality assurance program take inf.o account the otrain that might h
thereby be placed?
I would bc,very grateful for any general c:< position you might be able to make en that at the hearing.
S li
CIIAIRPJJT PTELLS:
I think pcrhaps related to thisw..
alco--hadthisquestionperhapsshouldbodirectedtothe staff at the hearing -- since as of new at least this is an uncontested prccocding, this Board will ba required only to ascertain that the manufacturar supports the application and the review of the applicaion has been adequate -- it mi ht b g
e useful if 'the staff would give the Board, if it continues to b6 an uncontested case, some,goneral ideas of how they evaluated the quality assurance program in germs of the abilit y of the contractors to mGet t4 Gir obligations on a tilacly basis.
4 I
i i
i 1
e i
IL
' 'CHh stMAN' tiELLS:
One of the favorite quactions thct I hava with reference to thoaa ki nds of applications is 'wh ther or not the materials that vill b o produced or the materials that will be used for fuol will b
~
e adequataly safe-guarded against diversion for unauthori
\\
zed usos.
I noticed the applicant han stated it will abid the Commicsion.
, e by the regulations of I am not informed as to Vhat the stat the Commission /'s rogulations on' thi us of I know in the Diablo caso the Bos particular point is.
ard was inforned that they were in preparation.
Perhaps the staff at the hearing would be gcod enough to bring us up to d ate on the. status of the regulations.
s
<~
/---
~
MR. ENGELHARD?:- Decause neither Mr. Long and l
Mr. Schwancar cro conversant in this crea, this are4of 1
l safeguarding the material ic a responcibility of a newly I
formed Division of Nucicar Materiala Safeguards t
andnormnllyl their tasticony is not required in hearings of thic
- natura,
{
but'I would bo happy to provide a response to your gncsta o t
I
...n i
if that would be saticfactory.
i; j
CitAIR:e.N ttELL:S That would be catisfactory for myi i
purposes,.
i
)
1 la
\\
m CHAIRIG1! U'LI$:
Mr. Erigg: ached a scrics of questions concering the plans for removal of iodino.
As I undar-i atand it in general certain chemical additives are expected to do this.
Research or experimentation is being done to ascertain if they will.
If they dont, then the altarnative l
1' is to haya charcoal filtars.
This general cubject, I said, has been the subject of considerahlo disccasion in many of the hoarings.
I ccnfess I am not quite sure why it has taken so much tima in each hearing, but it has.
So I expressed the hopo thht the Board and the applicant and tho staff, with a reciprocal sympathy in asking and answering the questions, might be able,, one, to minimise the time that is recuired to be spent on this subject, and two, perhaps get it answered in a sufficiently definitive way that it would be acceptabic; to this Board and perhaps to later boards.
l e
l D
-g
-s DE. CEYER:
Gr.e thing that it Ocemed I would like to have a little additional information on is the wholo questien of protcetion against floods.
It seems a bit unusual that a plant be designed to have eight feet of water around it under the c::treme conditions -- I realize these conditions ~ are es:ceedingly remoto.
But then the question comes up what constitutes-protection provided by Class i structures and problems of floating tanks, anything ficating away'in the vicinity of the plant, any drains that might i
admit uater inadvertently back into places whoro it wasn' t warited.
t 4
9 l
e l
lo
CHWJ.Pl4AN WELLS :
Yes.
I wonder if the question might not be regod this way -- and I think it is a useful one to whoever is participating en the Board -- what dcas the word " applicant" imply in the propoced finding that the applicant is qualified?
Does it ipso factoh include its contractors, or is it just the. applicant alone?
The stuff i
might wish to advise the Board on that.
Isn't that essentially I
the problem, Mr. Bond?
~
But I do think that the one question that would be useful for the staff to reply to is when the proposed finding refers to the technical qualification of the applicant, dons ths.t include tho 2.tility whose name appears on the application, or does that include his principal contractors, his servants, ceployees, and what not.
And therein I think probably lies the answer to this question l
l e
O (7
^
m.
the contractor to do th's construction work apparently has not been selected yet.
Is that correct, Mr. Jewell?
MR.'JEWELL:
That is correct, sir.
'\\
CIIAIRMAN WELLS:
I don't know whether this is customary or not, but whother it is or not, I suppose that might havo soma bearing on the quaction, 'if the applicant includes its principal contractors, and if the contractor to do the construction work is one of the principal contractors, that might have some. bearing on the finding.
l l
l
(?
. m.
the contractor to do th's construction work apparently has not been selected yet.
Is that correct, Mr. Jewell?
MR. JEWELL:
That is corrcot,, sir.
'\\
CIIAIEMAli UELT.S:
I don't Nnow whether this is customary or not, but whether it is or not, I suppose that might havo soma bearing on the question,'if the applicant includes its principal contractors, and if the contractor to do the construction work is one of the principal contractors, that might have some. bearing on the finding.
I e
0 e
e I-
~,
^
MR. LONGS, I just, Dr. Quarles, I would like to
~
inquire, you mentioned active versus passive with i
relation to r
of f-site \\. power.
DR. QUARLES:
Ye s.
MR. LONG:
Are you referring mainly to switching equipment versus transponders?
l DR. QUARLES:
I I.would like a definition of that.
f I am referring to the Maine Yankee case specifically I
I just' read it this morning.
I was alternate on that Board, and didn' t get the transcript until this morning.
But one of the s
questicns I posed in that. case van eh: radundancy of off-site power.
they-hedged on the answer to the question by saying the ACRS which referred to redundancy of,off-site power, had nennt active components, Dut my question really goes to the poin5 that I sed no differenceintheultimateresult,whetheryoucallacompency{t active or passive, provided that component's failure causes lvl;c of power.-
I couldn't care less whether it rotates or stands on its head if it faiIs.
O I T
y
(,
x e*
MR. LONG :
Fine, thank you.
I have one other question in general to the Board, as far as the iodine removal, the expression has been made that we be direct and I guess short in our responce.
Wa feel that inordertoadequatelyyoverthesubjc*ct, particularly in t
~
light of Mr. Driggs' questioning, it might be more adequate -
if the ctaff voro able to prepaye -- and I an not saying aou I am, - - but abic to prapara ae cahibit which e could sub-mit to the Scard and then Ou= marine at the hearing to indi-cate what we hava done, but tho sahibit itself would set forth the details.
Would this ho acceptable to the Board if we era able to do it betueen nou and the hearing on the 30th?
tia. DRIGGS:
I think that ::onld be seceptable.
I believa the problem tir. Walla was concerned with is our spend-ing three or four houro on one day and three or four hours on the next day asking quostiona and ptting answere and than acking questions again.
One would lika to clear it up with the Otaff telling what the' ctatus is, and what work noods to be done and what they went through in making the ovaluation, v:nat the conservatism io, and than the Board ;.aving to ack maybe only a very feu~questionts to clear the whole matter up.
20 l