ML19330B798
| ML19330B798 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8008070009 | |
| Download: ML19330B798 (60) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ - _ _
n%. e.wL."Q r
~
n, sn. mat.
,, p,$Y;y h,. ~. +y$gkuppm w$
$$5 b h s..-
,.. ~
-. 3 3 yh A Y ?'%
.g..
k kN ik,
Ahh
?h
$Y
,Sp' +.o.~~..x:.,. < m >.,wm..ywl.a=eet,;;,;ymr y:vv.ar:p* A %g..u.m;w.ms
?UkF+
- cy;s...; *
.m
. -uM: ".W m p m n y W ym.~ :.n e4 : c. e g 1
v.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D
[
COMMISSION MEETING y
- 7. :
~-s aL % z w w $ t; & ?b.2 m sn d %.s u n n > g gg & g M :is,va m. w :- m.x,.,.
.w.
-:n.:;.
f:~ Wp My:yggg.;Q.g;g.gfp;'gg;g-pq;g,;3gy;7.pg;;3, ;p. ;qqm;3.y; g;g, c,j.ppq,.;4
. e..
,4
- - r
.a n.i.-v a w e.w..: g'..,.,<.~.3.~..n.:n...,,...
...,.g
.A+
.e..
.. ?,,
'a-en.r.s,-.
ss
'4.
- -.+ ; e
, f...
w.
.:y?;
~. 7*.In.tbe Mn N,.nofi.'w20BLIC' MEETING: -
'.;ilin &'* W..
~,
s-4 '.% ~ 3." h8..
1 6C
- m A.-..s.:g'.,,;g,.;ey:t, 6 qv p r y
. e..
..t.
m g ; c.
..a..m.:m -:
> :; cre. u p,,g,.w.y,,...c. x:.n. :w::,.4.,.tw- ::y ;. c~y..,S,,.m: :-: ;%
,,,z. x u.
=-v.-
- z.
-., p 9,w
~.. e
. -, ' 4,; '..
- e:.,,.
,,.2
. f2 JDISCUSSION OF NORTH ANNA FULL POWER
~~' 1 -
< ~-+:,u
-n - -
A
.u...
LICENSE
- 1h
- [.%
J :~
~ :p g...
-l
. :..N.hM-h*'.[. P
. f,..,
9','~..
e
^'
ji:
. y ;.
~
..e
.g
-ys
.,, : ;/. :.z) w.. :.-
. q:.2,:
< s..
. ~
- u.
l f
c.m cc... + w.. a., - _,, _..
v-DA m July-31, 1980 1 ~ 46 PAGES:
AT: '
Washington, D. C.
y 4
- w w..
f r
1 i
ALDOLH)X REPORTLYG
)~
,1 I
l 400 Virginia Ave., S.W. Washingten, D. C.
20024 i
Telephone : (202) 554-2345
.8008070cok
r-
=
1 m
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PUBLIC MEETING 5
DISCUSSION OF NORTH ANNA FULL POWER LICENSE 6
7 8
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, N.
W.
11 Washing to n,
D.
C.
20555 12 July 31, 1980 13 The Commission set, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 u
9.m.
15 BEFORE.
16 JOHN AHEARNE, Chairman 17 JOSEPH HENDRIE, Commissioner 18 PETER GILINSKY, Commissioner 19 PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner j
20 STAFF PRESENT:
j 21 SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary Z1 LEONARD BICKWIT, General Counsel 23 H. DENTON 24 D.
EISENHUT V
25 H. SHAPAR
'N--
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I t
7
- _~
g
' 'a 2
1 A.
DROMURICK 2
E. WEBSTER 3
V. NOONAN 4
P. COLLINS 5
D.
ROSS 6
M. HALSCH 7
H. VOLLMER 8.
S.
HANAUER 9
A. KENNEKE 10 MH. ROWE 11 12 13 1
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
.L 25 u-ALDER $0N REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
)
a DISC 1 T
,-~
(
This is an unofficial ::anscript of a. =se i=g of da U:i:ad Sta:as Nuciaar lagula:ory Cc dssion held on July 31, 1980 in the Commission's officas a: 1717'E 5::ee, N. W., Washd ston, D. C.
The maa:ing was open :s pubi d-a::endanca and obsarra:1cn.
This ::anscript has =c: bean reviewed, cc : acted, or edi:ad, and i: may contain i=accuracias.
The ::a=scripe is istandad solely for gn=ard d #c:=ational purposes.
As p;cvidad by 10 C:TP. 9.103, i: is co: par of -la for=al or d #c:=al record of decisien of da =at:ars discussad.
Exprassicus of opd-d en in -lis ::mnscript dc sc: secessazily reflac: fi=al da:a==d=aticus or baliais.
Ne pleadd ! or c:har paper =ay be filad. vi h de Cc--d asien in any p cceedi g as da rasul: of or addrassed :c any sa: amen: or argu=en: con-'d ed harain, axcept as da Cc issicn. ay autherf:a.
(
x I
e 4
4 I
i
3 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs The meeting of the Commission 2 this af ternoon is to hear from the director of nuclear 3 reactor regulationi and the staff regarding a proposal to 4 give a full power operating license to North Anna Unit 2.
5 Sometime earlier this spring,'the Commission did 6 authorize a low power -- or did authorize low power 7 operation of North Anna Unit 2.
That restricted the power 8 to no greater than 5 percent.
9 The Commission has in the interim had a number of 10 meetings on how we ought to go about addressing operating 11 licenses.
I am sure that all of us have particular 12 questions that we would like to ask, and it may well be that i
13 there are a number of additional views that we will end up
(-
14 taking.
15 But the only way at least to get to those issues 16 is to allow Harold to present them.
17 Harold?
18 HR. DENTON I hadve with me today Darrell 19 Eisenhut, director, division of licensing; Alex Dromurick, 20 project manager, North Anna Unit 2; and Ted Webster, senior 21 inspector.
22 We completed a review of this application against D criteria set f orth for issuance of f ull power licenses.
24 Those criteria were contained in NUREG-0694 We conclude 25 that the applicant has satisfied those criteria.
ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
e 4
,~-
1 We also reviewed the status of emergency planning 2 in that area; we find tha t it has satisfied those criteria 3 with the exception of the performance of the integrated 4 emergency exercise, and tha t xercise is planned earlier this 5 month.
6 We have also satisfied ourselves on all the 7 remaining issues in this review.
8 Therefore, we thin'k that contingent upon 9 completion of the emergency planning exercise and 10 concurrence by FEMA, that the emergency planning is in a 11 satisfactory state, that all the Commission's criteria f or 12 the issuance of a f ull power license have been met.
13 CHAIREAN AHEARNE That exercise is currently 14 scheduled for?
15 HR. DENTONs August 9 16th.
We will cover it 16 in more detail in the presentation.
I'7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Harold, could you pull vour 18 mike in a little closer and bellow into it.
I have a notion 19 from the purzled looks I see from my vantage that th4 audio 20 system may not be reaching everybody.
21 MR. DENTON:
All right.
22 COMMISSIONER HEND2IE:
Thanks.
23 MR. DENTON:
With that int:cduction, the project 24 manager, Alex Dromurick, will go th ro ug h our prepared 25 presentation and summarize the highligh ts of our review and t.
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
MMVER[mM6 W16t0RXsiT@RL f@R f6fdF4 (RiRD GP3-fE4@
i 5
1 our findings.
2 MR. DRCMURICK:
May I have the first slide, 3 please, d
(Slide) 5 As Harold stated, th purpose of this meeting is to 6 discuss matters related to the issuance of a full power 7 license for North Anna Unit 2 and matters that we would like 8 to talk about are the licensee 's actions since the issuance 9 of the low power license with preliminary results of the low 10 power test program; our review of the non-TMI issues, 11 including the TMI 2 issues as discussed in NUREG-0694 for 12 full power; and the dated requirements.
13 (Slide)
(
1-4 And finally, we will state our recommendations 15 regarding the issuance of a full power license.
16 As you know, a low power license was issued in l'7 April of 1980, and VEPCO achieved criticality on North Anna 18 Unit 2 in June.
19 (Slide) 20 In early July, they conducted their low power test 21 program and preliminary -- conducted their low power test 22 program.
We will discuss that matter a little further later D on.
24 Our review x
25 MR. DENTON:
Next slide, please.
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l o
8 1
MR. DROMURICK:
Next slide, please.
2 (Slide) 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me stop you there.
I 4 notice the test program took about a week.
How many hours 5 are involved in such a program?
6 MR. DROMURICK:
It took about a week and a half, 7 and do you know the hours, Ted, approximately?
8 COMMISSICNER GILINSKYs Roughly?
9 MR. ~4E3 STER:
The initial run-through of all 10 testing took from July 3, about 3:00 p.m.,
until about 8:00 i
i 11 in the morning on the Monday following.
That was an initial 12 run-through and did not include training and observation by 13 all operators.
/
~
14 But it did run through each of the tests one i
15 time.
I think that is abour three and a half days; that 16 was basically either setting up for testing or conducting 1'7 th e tests th roughout.
j 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Thank you.
19 MR. DROMURICKs Okay.
We conclude that the tests 20 were run -- vere conducted safely, and it did show the heat 21 removal capacity of the plant in regard to natural 22 circulation and it also provided, we think, beneficial 23 training of the oprators.
24 VEPCO has made this statemet in their report, and s
25 ve can concur with it.
In addition, operators have come to S
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7 1 members of our staff and have told them personally that they 2 feel this meeting was beneficial.
,~
3 MR. DENTON:
It is interesting that the 4 performance of the plan t was about as predicted, and with 5 regard to the procedures, there were a few procedural 6 lessons they learned and changes they made in the procedures 7 as a result of the tests.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Did this go beyond what 9 was common in the past?
In other words, is this a test 10 sequence tha t was more extensive than we required in the 11 past?
12 MR. DROMURICK:
These were additionial tests in 13 addition to our initial test program tha t we have that
('
14 generally specified in chap ter 15 -- 14 of the FSAR 15 MR. DENTON:
These were focused on the 16 demonstration of natural circulation, and theref ore it 1'7 included a f ew other specifics.
These are all first of a 18 kind tests in many respects.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Essentially the same tests 20 tht were conducted at Sequoyah.
21 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
ZZ MR. DROMURICK:
Yes.
All but two.
23 MR. WEBSTER:
Two tests conducted at Sequoyah were 24 not conducted at No rth Anna.
25 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY:
Any pa rticula r reason for I
ALDEitSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345-
8 1 that?
2 MR. DROMURICK:
One was that on one of the tests 3 we felt that this was not plant-specific and that you could l
4 get the benefits of the tests at Sequoyah.
And they had the 5 proper instrumentation to do that.
. 6 On the other one, which was involving boron 7 mixing, we felt that instead of doing that in this 8 condition, tu would be much better to do it when we have 9 some decay heat and we will condition the license that VEPCO 10 do that test when they have sufficient decay heat available.
11 COMMISSIONE2 GILINSKY:
Thank you.
12 MR. DROMURICX4 I would like t now go and discuss 13 some of the detail of our review.
I4 (Slide) 15 As I stated previously, we have reviewed non-IMI 16 items, approximately 16 of them from previous low power 17 discusions with the Commission and in particular I would 18 like to discuss fire protection and equipment qualification.
19 Also, we would like to discuss our view concerning 20 the TMI-2 issues, which are defined in NUREG-0694, 21 particularly the full power requirements and data U requirements.
23 The significant issues I would like to discuss 24 with regard to TMI-2 involve shift staffing, dated items, 25 and emergency preparedness.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGIN!A AVEa S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 -
9 1
The next slide, plese.
2 (Slide)
/
3 MR. DENTON:
These two items we want to call to 4
your attention in view of the recent Commission memorandum 5 and order in these two areas to be sure we properly 6 interpret your guidance.
7 MR. DROMURICK:
With regard to fire protection, 8 the North Anna design meets Appendix A to the branch 9 technical position, APCSD 9.5-1 and GDC 3.
Modifications 10 which must be implemented by November 1 will be performed by 11 VEPCO on two of the items, and one item which concerns the 12 alternate shutdown system will,be implemented by April 1981 13 --did I say November 1,
1981?
I meant November 1,
1980.
(
1-4 These items were, one, the smoke detection system, 15 and th second item which has to be completed by November is 16 the reactor coolant pum p or containment system.
17 The item that has to be resolved by April 1 18 involves the alternate shutdown system, the charging pump 19 cross-connect between unit 1 and unit 2.
20 MR. DENTON:
I think 21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDr Each of those are 22 consistent with the current Commission position on fire 23 protection?
24 MR. DROMURICX:
It meets the guidance of the 25 Commission.
ALDERSON REPORT 1NG COMPANY, INC.
400 VtRGINTA AVE. S.W., WAShtNGTON, D.C/ 20024 J202) 554-2345 '
o 10 1
MR. DENTON:
Since there is so much interwoven 2 fabric on this issue, let me ask Dick Vollmer, the director
~
3 of the division responsible for fire review to address that 4 question.
5 MR. VOLLMER:
Okay.
This review took the -- used 6 as the same basis the reviews that have been conducted in 7 other operating plants.
And the plants that have -- going 8 through the operating license re view; namely, the branch 9 technical positions indicated on the board up there.
10 The review is complete.
All of the things we feel 11 are,requied for a full and complete fire protection program 12 have been agreed to by the licensee.
And the only items 13 that are yet to be implemented were the two that Alex 14 indicated.
15 So we would feel that upon completic of these that 16 the licensee would have a complete and adequate fire 17 protecton program in his plant and would meet the May 23 18 Commission memo and order which said tha t the staff 's 19 combination of the branch technical position and Appendix 3 20 was a-satisfactory fo rm ula for assuring compliance with GDC 21 and fire protection.
Z!
MR. DENTON:
We are treating this plant in the 23 same manner as all operating plants.
We assume your 24 memorandum and order applies to it.
25 MR. MALSCH:
Does it comply with the re g ula tio n s ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINlA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTONiD.C. 20024 f 2021554a2345'
k1 1 now?
Are you saying that they vill with modifications to be 2 made?
3 MR. DENTON Well, I guess -- does the 4 Commission's memorandum and order grant to November 1 to be 5 in compliance?
6 MR. MALSCHs' I gather you are saying yes?
7 MR. DENTON4 I read it to do that.
So if it does 8 not, they have not made these last two changes.
If it does 9
the memorandum and order, I think is equally applicable 10 here.
But it is a question we vanted to be sure you 11 understood how it was being addressed.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think that that 13 MR. BICKWIT Yes.
(
14 MR. DROMURICK:
I would like to go on to the next 15 issue, and that is equipment qualification.
16 (711de)
I'7 In accordance with our requirements, VEPCO 18 submitted a proposal in June concerning NUREG-0588, and they 19 vill complete their review 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the date of that 21 NUREG?
22 MR. DROMURICK4 The date of the NUREG7 23 MR. EISENHUT Sometime in 1979.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
According to this it is 25 December 1979.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
T&MP%5503
~
12
,e-1 MR. DROMURICX:
December 1979.
It will complete 2 its review of NUREG-0588 by November 1,
1980 and during 3 while they are operating, if there are anay deficiencies, t
4 ther will be required to meet the technical specifications 5 concerning conditions of operability.
6 And as you can see on the slide, the deficiencies 7 will be corrected promptly and in accordance with the 8 Commission 's memorandum and order we will hve our SER 9 completed February 1,
1981, and we will require qualified 10 equipment by June of 1982.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, what is the status 12 of our understanding of the qualificaton of the equipment 3
13 now?
l 14 MR. DROMURICX:
Right now, VEPCO has stated that 15 they have what they define as deficiencies on approximately 16 48 items.
It is my understanding 1'7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE4 It says 57 on this.
18 MR. DROMURICKs That is documentation 19 deficiencies.
And then they have nien on other items which 20 we have addressed in supplement number ten.
21 Those would be the Rosemonts, the RDTs, the 22 resistant te mpe ra tu re detectors, that type of 23 instrumentation.
24 MR. EISENHUTs You remember discussons we had 25 concerning operating plants and wha t constituted a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C; 20024 CO2) 554 2345; '-
13 1 deficiency.
A deficiency against our guidelines or 2 documents vould be anything from lack of complete
(~
3 documentation to lack of a directly applicable piece of test t
4 data, et cetera, a number of things; that was, where a 5 component did not meet all aspects of our yardstick in 6 reviewing it.
~
7 So ve had.to go back and look at the 57 and see 8 what they are in each case.
The utility states he has a 9 rationale and basis for vNy he thinks the component is safe 10 for that period of time.
11 It is a question, again, until a better component 12 is designed and it is capable of being put in the plant; it 13 is the identical question you f ace with operating plants.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do we have a list of these 15 components?
I did not see one in the --
16 MR. EISENHUT:
The 577 17 MR. DROMU RICK :
A specific list, I don 't believe 18 ve have.
But they do include valves, motors, motor control 19 centers and cables.
And they are in various systems.
20 But I voluid like to point out that approximately 21 90 percent of the equipment is outside containment.
22 MR. EISENHUT:
- 4 hat we have done is looked at the 23 57 items, as to what their safety significance is and for 24 various reasons, similar to the rationale we vent through 25 bef ore on operating p la n ts, item by item, a family of items.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINTA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON. D.CJ 20024 (202) 554-2345
14 1
We have not done a detailed review.
The utility 2 has not completed its detailed review on all th e parts.
He
(~
3 is doing a detailed review.
4 We asked him to have his evaluation in byr 5 November 1.
Then we would turn around and issue a safety 6 evaluation by February 1,, consistent with the' approach we 7 are using in the cerating plants.
-8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Alex, when you say we don't 9 have a list, do you mean'that we don't have a list or the 10 NRC staff does not have a list?
11 MR. DROMURICK:
The NRC staff knows what types of 12 items they are, but specifically, we do not have a complete 13 lit of the 47.
CO$MISSIONERGILINSKY:
What I was trying to get 14 15 at is what is the basis of our conf'.dence?
16 MR. DROMURICK I might just add something; l'7 actually, when we call this a deficiency, I would like to 18 point out what it is.
VEPCO does have a certificate of 19 conformance, and they also have letters and telexes from th e 20 manufacturers stating that this equipment meets their stated 21 requirements, VEPCO's stated requirements.
22 However, VEPCO does not hve the supporting test 23 da ta, and this is what they are trying to get by November 1,
24 1980.
25 COMMISSIONER RRADFORD:
Well, let's sees were J
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) $54-2345
16 o
1 VEPCC's stated requirements th same as NUBEG-0588?
2 MR. DROMURICK:
WEll --
g 3
MR. EISENHUT:
Dick Vollmer will clarify that.
4 MR. VOLLMER:
We did recently an audit of the 5 items that were found to be deficient, and I think, as Alex 6 indicated, 48nof them were documentation.
We looked at 7 those and found that these particular items had 8 certification or the items could be justified based on 9 actual conditions or need for opration.
10 There were nine other items that were either 11 replaced or relocated.
That would be done by full power 12 operation.
13 We had, as was also indicated, a program in place k-1,4 to provide us with all of the details, assuring conformance 15 with NUREG-0588 by November 1.
Our initial audit was 16 recently done in accordance with the guidelines of 0588.
We l'7 tried to do our audit review of equipmen t qualifications to 18 that particular guideline.
19 MR. DENTON:
Once again, it is an analogous 20 situation.
21 MR. YOLLMER:
It is entirely analogous to --
22 MR. DENTON:
On these nine pieces of equipment, 23 there is no equipment they can presently buy tha t pre sen tly 24 qualifies for the 40 year life and aging effecting, and so 25 forth.
The staff has made a determination in each case l
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTCN. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
16
.o..
1 based on what it was actually qualified f or, how long it had 2 to last in that environment so the plant can be operats for I'
3 a certain period of time while they find more qualified t
4 equipment.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is aging a question that 6 poses the biggest problem?
7 MR. VOLLMER:
That is one, I think.
8 Ince, do you want to mention -- discuss th e 9 aging?
I think certainly there are very few, if any, 10 components that are currently qualified to that particular 11 item.
12-While he is discussing that with Frank, the audit,
13 our intention is again to do the SER detailing the reasons
\\
14 either for accepting the current qualifications of equipment 15 by February 1,
and then they would of course - again, as 16 goes with the Commission memorandum and order, they would be 17 required to have everything in place by June 82 meeting 18 NUREG-0588.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
When you say "everything 20 in place," Dick, do you mean all the equipment then in the 21 plan t qualified?
22 MR. VOLLMER:
Electrical equipment qualified to 23 the guidelines in NUEEG-05 88.
24 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
So you are saying that to 25 the extent anaything does not meet the g uidelines, it will i
ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W.; WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
_17
('
1 have to have been replaced by June?
2 MR. VCLLMER:
Anything that does not meet the f'
3 guidelines would either have to be shown to be -- meet 4 something th a t would pass an equivalency test or it would 5 have to be shown that there were other systems in the plant 6 th at were well enough qualified that they could take either 7
do the job of -- in other words, we could safely shutdown 8 th e plant without that particular component functioning.
9 We would have to be assured in all cases of a safe 10 shutdown in the event of an accident or hard environment 11 under any circumstances.
12 Eut that does not mean necessarily all of the 13 electrical safety related components will meet full
('
14 qu alifica tion ;
tha t is, by the end of June of 82.
15 MB. DENTON:
We are not proposing anything unique 16 h e re.
Your memorandum and order applying to all plants l'7 would apply to this plant as well.
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Would you identify yourself?
19 MR. NOONAN Vince Noonan, division of engineering.
20 I did not hear Mr. Gilinsky's question directly.
21 I was ha ving a hard time hearing, but the staff has staff 22 has sent a team of people to Richmond as of last Tuesday and ZI Wedn e sd a y.
24 What we did is we did an audit of the -- on the
(
25 items, particularly ones called deficiencies.
We picked up ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
L
$2MlfelTMG Atit CM_ WARHIN@T@N, @.@. 20024 (2027554-2345
,,e -
is
(
l the items; we tracked through the paperwork trail and found 2 out whether or not we could conclude -- draw the same I'
3 conclusions as the licensee could on these particular items.
4 Our results were that we could; they had 5 basically -- we stated the deficiencies -- out of all the 6 list, maybe only one of them migh t be -- migh t be in an 7 ensircrment where they cannot provide test data for it.
8 So don't get the idea that everything is missing.
9 Most of the list are complete except for some of the 10 environments.
So they are still qualified as deficiencies.
11 M3. EISENHUTs That is right.
Vince, correct me 12 if I'm wrong.
13 But I think we do have a listing of all the
(-
14 components.
15 MH. NOONAN We do have, that is correct.
We do 16 have a listing of all the components.
I'7 MR. EISENHUT:
They are the kinds of things, a lot 18 of them, where something has not been qualified for long 19 term radiation effects to where, of course, since we just 20 came out with our equipment -- a lo t of the equipment is 21 first being developed.
It jst does not exist a t this point 22 in time.
Il One other thing, along the same framework, there
.(
24 will be a tech spec on the plant, of course, which says tha t 25 as this review progresses between now and November 1 -- and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W.,-WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 q
e,
I' 1 it would continue for all time -- that if in f act a 2 component was found to be in question and not qualified, the I
3 utility must make the determination that that component is 4 not inoperable and the tech spec will specifically address 5 what you have to do if a certain component is inoperable.
6 It certaihly directs the action, within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or direct 7 action within a certain amount of time.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why would they be under 9 much incentive to take an action if it is shown another 10 system can be used to serve the same purpose in the event 11 that the equipment is called on to function?
12 MR. EISENHUT:
Well --
o 13 MR. DENTONs Well, th e tech specs spell out what
(-
14 certain equipment has to be there in diverse and redundant 15 form, and it permits only one channel to be out for a 16 certain number of hours or days.
So they would have to l'7 correct it or discontinue oepration if th ey find a whole 18 channel that was required to be diverse or redundant-19 equipment was not available, treating it as if that system 20 failed; whereas, if you require a certain number of th e se 21 systems in operation --
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Tha t does not seem to me 23 cons is t en t with what I understood Dick to say; the basis 24 for leaving one piece of equipmen in place would ce you 25 could show through analysis that you could get along without ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
20 1 it.
2 MR. DENTON:
I thought you were asking the
/
3 ultimate questions that when the deadlines roll around, 4 there is not equipment that meets the IEEE-174.
5 I think Dick was talking about what you vauld do 6 in that case, and I think Dick would say tha t is technical 7 judgment based on the serits of that piece of equipment.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's just say there was 9 one item of equipment that does not meet the guidelines as 10 of -- whatever it was -- June or July 1.
11 I understood Dick to be saying that you would 12 analyre your way around that dif ficulty.
and I understood 13 you to be saying that it might be tolerable for a short (x
14 period of time.
15 go?
16 MR. EISENHUT The two go hand in hand.
The l'7 requirement is you show things are qualified by test Or 18 analyses.
If you can show the component survives and it is 19 qualified and it vill perform its f unction --
20 COMMISSIONER RRADFORD:
That is 1
21 MR. 2:SENHUT The next step is you look at it and 22 you see that there are certain items in the tech specs, that 23 if the utility decides that th a t particular component in a 24 particular train in a particular system, and it is thi.c 25 family of them built in to require redundancy and diversity ALCERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,1NC.
mnnarmuxcuaumcrammusuuecutnanwa-raaa
g; 1
if you reach the conclusion that it will probably in 2 their best technical judgment not perform the saf ety 3 function, then they declare the system inoperable and they 4 are bound to the tech specs.
5 So that builds on top of it another level of 6 requirements to help ensure tha t the plant can adequately 7 survive any situation.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Supposing that you o
9 conclude that it is they conclude that it is inoperable 10 and it does not met the requirements.
Is that the situation 11 which Dick was talking about?
12 MR. DENTONs Those are two different issues we 13 are talking about here.
One is what will be done at North 14 Anna between now and the time the Commission 's memorandum 15 and order requires perf o rm an ce.
And then I assumed you were 16 asking at the end of that period, suppose there was still --
17 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
That's right.
No, tha t 's 18 ri gh t.
19 MR. DENTON:
I guess I had not really thought 20 about what we would do in that time f rame.
I thought Dick 21 answered tha t they would look at it based on the actual 22 performance requirements f or tha t piece of equipment.
And 23 it might require an exemption of exception.
24 I just have not th o ugh t what your final order 25 Vould require if it may not be possible to qualify all these ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W;. WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 4 345'
22 1 pieces of equipment by this date.
2 MR. VOLLMER:
That is what I was referring to.
In 3 other words, the general requirement is also to relate to 4 electrical equipment.
One would have to look at the systems 5. aspect f or whether or not the plant would be safel shutdown 6 in the event a specific piece of equipment had not been 7 qualified.
8 In that case, there would be an exemption or 9 something like that.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Now, does the staff 11 position on spare parts apply as much to this plant as to 12 any other operating plant?
13 MR. VOLLMER:
The staff position -- are you k
14 referring to the Commission memo and order that said 15 replacement parts need to conform to certain requirements?
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
I'7
- 33. VOLLMER:
We had a discussion at the regional 18 meetings on this.
It appears that one could not make a 19 function for saying that future by the time you make a 20 replacement as of a certain date that it had to meet a 21 certain qualificaton because parts may not indeed be there.
22 We are trying to come up wi th a specific position 23 or guidance in that area.
And we vould seek your advice in i
24 th t berause we need to get it out and have committed to get 25 it out to the industry.
ALDERSON REPORUNG CCMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE l S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 1202) 554-::3451
23 1
They just plain do not have replacement of spare 2 parts qualified to higher levels, p ar ticula rly that which
[
3 was indicated by the Commission.
s_
4 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I understand that point, 5 and obviously some reasonble working out has to be reached 6 between what exists and what should be required.
At the 7 same time, there is something bizarre about starting up a 8 plant, which-- have no idea what kinds of replacement parts 9 they have already bought or have lying around.
10 But if a pa rt has an anticipated life of eight or 11 nine years and they have a spare that they have already got 12 onhand, in effect, you would be talking about an 18 year 13 exemption.
('
14 And I know I cannot speak for the Commission, but 15 I know that is not what I hd in mind in the memo and order.
16 MR. VL5LMER:
There are a number of problems in l'7 that regard; both of what the industry has in stock as 18 supplier and what the individual licensees have in hand in 19 stock, and you are right, some of these mean a long 20 exemption.
21 So I think what we are trying to do is look a t the 22 classes of equipment and to try to come up with a reasonble 23 schedule of implementation which would achieve the quickest 24 possible qualification of all spare replacement parts, of 25 which there are, of course, as you know, very many.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
FRTWiC4RTM fcQR 2r6R4 (T@3) EU.;til4;T "
gf 1
MR. EISENHUT It is not necessarily clear that 2 the thing has to be qualified for 40 years.
One thing that 3 would certainly be acceptable to us is to say that if you km 4 could show that something is qualified for 20 years and they 5 promise and commit as a license condition to replace it 6 every ten yars, it certainly is qualified for its useful 7 life, 8
So the question may be approached slightly 9 differently.* 'Je would be looking at it -- we want to be 10 sure --
11 COMMISSIONER 3R ADFORD:
I did not want to take 12 that issue up apart from the North Anna license.
There 13 seemed to be something 14 MR. EISENHUT:
There is nothing unique here.
15 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
That there is nothing 16 unique here may in itself be a bit of a difficulty; that 17 is, to apply the rule to a plant that has not operated yet 18 in a way that would also cover all of its spare parts, ad 19 infinitem, which woul illustrate the most extreme --
20 MR. DENTON:
I hve not focused on spare parts; I
21 would not think spare pa rts would be all that costly, and it 22 would be in the interest of the utility to get in a 40 year 23 proven component as soon as possible.
24 Otherwise, th e y would be committed to 25 MR. EISENHUT:
Our objective would be to get a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
QVIR$1NIA AVQ$.W.7 WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 ~ ~~ ':
25 1 qualified component in as soon as possible.
That is the way 2 I read the tone of the Commission's memorandum and order.
3 Unless you have a justificaton for not going with a new 4
component, you should have any new component or replacement 5 component qualified to the higher standard.
I think th a t is 6 right.
7 If something can be shown to have a useful life of 8 eight years, though, that may be good cause; you could 9 replace it every five years.
10 We vill have to look at it on a case by case 11 basis.
But the objective on all plants will be to get there 12 as soon as practical and at all times ensuring that there is 13 adequate safety.
14 MR. DENTON:
It is a question we do need to focus 15 on across the board.
And I guass my instincts are that this 16 plant would not be treated any differently for spare parts l'7 than the others.
18 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
That is what I wanted to 19 understand.
20 MR. DROMURICK:
We can go to the next issue.
I 21 would like to discuss staffing requirements.
22 The next slide, please.
23 (Slide) 24 There is a slight revision to the table you will 25 see on the board there.
The number of licensed senior ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
EGVIRRINIA AVfL R.W., WARHINMNm b] R WIF<4 ffMG GQS-f6)49
26 1 operators now is 16 on units 1 and 2, senior reactor 2 operators.
3 And on unit 1 only, there are four senior reactor
.sk 4 operators licensed as of today. And our requirements 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs The number of reactor operators 6 stays the same?
7 MR. DROHURICKs That stays the same right now, 12 8 and five.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You did not -- SRCs did not 10 come from previus 20s?
11 MR. DENTON:
They were just additional --
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
They had not been operators?
13 ER. DENTON:
The chief of that branch is here.
t 1
Paul, the question ist did the additional SR0s 15 come from the RO ranks or --
16 MR. COLLINSs The additional SR0s on units 1 and 2 17 vere licensed on unit 1.
They had successfully completed 18 the examination we gave last month and now have licenses on 19 ho th units.
20 Unfortunately, two of the people who had senior 21 licenses -- the other two people are staff peo61e and they 22 have met our cold eligibility recuirements, which do not l
23 require an individual to hold a license on unit number 1
(
24 first.
25 They met the unique requirements for the cold ALCERSCN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
a
27 t
I license examination.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So that the total.-- it is just i
3 a minor question.
The total pool seems to have increased by 4 six people.
5 MR. COLLINS:
Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Without coming from the reactor 7 operators.
8 MR. COLLINS:Four of them did, yes,' sir.
9 CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
Wouldn't the reactor operator 10 numbers decrease?
11 MR. EISENHUTs Well, I think the point here is --
12 MR. DENTON:
It shows they had adequate staffing.
13 MR. EISENHUT:
These were this morning's results 1-4 of the examinations.
And I think the point is that the 12 15 and two number really tells you that you hve 14 SRos, in 16 essence, who are qualified at this station and 17 Ros who 17 are qualified.
And we think tha t is more than adequate for 18 the station.
19 In fact, most of them are qualified on units 1 and 20 2.
You have a lot of interchangability.
This was this 21 morning's quali.tication.
22 MR. DETTON:
Ultimately, our requirements will 23 show the movement from RO up to SRO.
24 (Laughter) 25 MR. EISENHUT:
37 design.
4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
28
..s-1 MR. DROMURICK:
On the basis of the numbers we 2 have determined that they have adequate staffing for 3 operation 4
Next slide, please.
5 (Slide) 6 I would like to discuss the dated requirements 7 that are in NUREG-069 u.
And VEPCO has committed to complete 8 all these items.
9 However, there are five items which they have 10 asked for an extension from the implementaton date shown in 11 NUREG-069u.
These items, th reactor system coolant vents, 12 post accident sampling, hudrogen 13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Can you explain why they have i
14 to have an extension?
15 MR. DROMURICK:
Sure.
On the reactor system 16 vents, they have to develop a system; we are going to l'7 require them to ccme up with a conceptual -- with a design 18 and procedures by January 1,
1981.
19 However, they have asked for an extension until 20 12/81 and tha t is because they must develop the complete 21 design and procure it.
22 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY:
Let's see, what happens Z3 on that date?
24 MR. DENTON:
You remember, we had all the dated 25 items on 1/1/81.
That was the original date when you really ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
g
O 29 1 start looking at the interaction between the even t and the 2 water level instrumentation.
The staff has had questions 3
(
about how it should be designed and what the procedures are.
4
[
So I see these -- I see treating these in the same 5 manner that we treated the short ters Lessons Learned.
We 6 vant them in there as expeditiously as they are designed to 7 be completed and then get in line for the delivery of that 8 equipment and then install it pro m p tl y.
9 But in each one there have been difficulties in 10 eith er equipmen t procurement or our coming to grips with the 11 design.
12 Let me ask Denny Ross, chief of tha t division,
13 that I think includes all of these, to discuss these five.
14 (Commissioner Bradfo rd lef t the Commissioner's l
15 Conference Room at 3: 41 p.m.)
16 I think the dates in the righthand column as what l'7 is proposed as acceptable or doable for the licensee -- we 18 will make every effort to squeeze those back, depending on 19 how our review comes in each area.
20 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY:
That is the date for 21 having this equipment in place?
22 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
23 MR. ROSS.
From the chart you see on th e board,
24 the top item and the bottom item go together.
You will 25 recall that one of the requirements about a year ago was a 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
30
~
1 requirement for an unambiguous indication of water level in 2 the vessel.
3 VEPCO has bought the design and engineering for 4 both of these items from Westinghouse.
Later on this summer 5 and fall when we discuss other PWRs, you will see 6,varia tions, some f rom Westinghouse and some not.
th e 7 detailed mechanical engineering design on some of these 8 components is in place at Westinghouse and will not be 9 complete until this f all.
10 Parts, in some instances, including a tranducer 11 and valves are on order, and delivery of these components 12 takes time.
13 It appears that all of the engineering will be 14 complete long about the end of the year; that the 15 components for the last item, vater level, which appear to 16 be pacing, should be available about the spring of 81.
17 And our review vill be proceeding concurrent with 18 this.
We vill be looking at the safety analysis and design, 19 the detailed designs, the criteria, qualificatons, testing, 20 on so on, from now until next summer.
21 Our best estimate to date is it will all come 22 together about a year fron today.
The equipment should be 23 available to VEPCO; the analysis on how to use it, and our 24 safety review should be complete roughly a year from now.
25 It takes about a two month scheduled outage t ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY, INC.
Ma%lleff?ID 6 c/XRG6fiRo1Rf@A MF0 (RiFa GP.3 fM1 '
31 1 install the two items put together.
2 (Commissioner Bradford returned to the 3 Commissioner's Conference Room at 3.44 p.m.)
7L 4
Currently, VEPCO has proposed this be done 5 concurrent with the first refueling outage, which would be 6 late 81.
That is where we stand on those two items.
7 MR. DENTON Do you want to cover the other three?
8 MR. ROSS:
Yes, the other three are relatively --
9 by the way, with respect to the top and the bottom ones, 10 there are some procedures, admittedly interim in nature, 11 which are relevant, like inadequa te core cooling, procedures 12 where some instruments do exist, although the reactor vessel 13 level does not.
14 And that was one of the key ingredients.
There 15 are interim procedures in place for inadequate core cooling, 16 the post accident sampling.
There is a f ew months delay.
17 Th ere are some special isolation valves; they won't be in 18 until about the end of the year.
19 A brief plant outage is needed and the intention 20 is as soon as the components are in place, there would be --
21 there is a March of 81 scheduled outage to put those in.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The pacing there is the 23 MR. ROSS:
Delivery of valves.
f 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Is it just a 25 MR. ROSS:
We met concurrently with three of the ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
02qMfleTray3 /3
[MS %t3-fS42 f
32 1 near term OLs and VEPCO was also speaking not only for North 2 Anna 1,
but unit 2 and Surry 1 and 2.
And the VEPCO 3 procurement, I think it was close to 100 valves altogether,
{
4 and -- for their four plants.
5 And it is just a question -- if there is any delay 6 at all beyond the la te -- I think December 1980 arrival of 7 the valves, that it could delay slightly the installation.
8 But this is strictly a material procurement.
They 9 do have interim procedures for sampling until this final 10 design comes in and is installed.
11 On item II.F.1(c), hydrogen monitoring, all of th e 12 industry is having procurement problems on monitors.
They 13 do have a delivery date, March 81.
They recently committed 1-4 to use of, if needed, of a gas chromatograph for interim 15 sampling until the final monitor comes in.
16 They can also draw a containment sample, so they l'7 have an interim pro cedure th e re.
18 And the final item, (e), noble gas monitor, they 19 procured an integrated effluent monitor, airborne effluent 20 monitor for noble gases, particulates and radiciodine, which 21 they expect to be delivered next sumner.
22 What they will have to do between now and then, 23 should the need arise, is the interim equipment procedures 24 that were in place from last fall's clarification s
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There are interim --
5 ALDER 5cN REPCRTING COMPANY, INC.
P F#4TULMFUTth@'R
3.1 1
MR. ROSS:
There are interim -- they were sent out 2 about Setember 1979, interim procedures and clarification to 3 operating plants.
(
4 What it indicates is whenever we lay the new 5 requirements, that requires the procurement of equipment on 6 everyone.
Perhaps it should be in a staqqered manner.
It 7 creates a pressure on a limited supply, and they have to get 8 in line.
9 I think VEPCO has shown every effort to attempt to 10 meet the ned of the year date and provide us a good faith 11 effort to do that.
And they did it in 15 of the items.
So 12 what you are seeing are the excep tions.
13 ER. EISENHUTs One point in passings you remember i
14 these are also -- the 3 Part of the short tern Lesson,s 15 Le,arned where we decided to put an interin fix on almost 16 every one of these.
17 We surveyed-11 plants just in about the last 18 couple of days and they are averaging about four to five 19 items per plant.
They are just not going to be able to put 20 them la plce by 1/1/81, and we are going to be completing 21 that effort, and that is exactly where we stand.
22 MR. DROMURICK:
Next slide, please.
23 (Slide) 24 I would like to discuss the last issue of the 25 presentation, and this is in regard to emergency ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY, INC.
34 I preparedness.
And the VEPCO emergency plan has just teen 2 implemented on July 25 and it complies with NUREG-0654.
It 3 complies with NUREG-065u and also with new regulation 50.47.
4 I would like Mr. Hove to clarif y our positions 5 regarding this matter.
6 hR. 30WE4 We reviewed the VEPCO emergency plan 7 primarily against the requirements of NUREG-0654 at the same 8. time we were developing the final rule on emergency 9 preparedness.
10 We guided VEPCO along the path that that rule was 11 taking, and we felt that until the last revisions prior to 12 the Commission approving that rule, that they were fairly 13 vell in compliance with that rule on the VEPCO side.
i 14 We cannot say the same thing for the state and local because 15 ve are -- we are no t in as firm contact with FEMA on that 16 particular point and their analysis of the state and local 17 plans with respect to our final rule.
18 COMMISSIONER ERADFORD:
Am I correct in 19 understanding you to say th a t the compliance was before the 20 final -- before the last changes?
21 MR. RCWE:
We try to keep t ra ck wi th the changes 22 and keep VEPCO up to that particular point.
And we have 23 received the final, although it has not been published in 24 the Federal Register, and we have looked at it preliminarily 25 and feel can meet the licensee's portion.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
TA
35 I
We cannot comment right now, of course, on the 2 state and local.
)
3 MR. EISENHUT:
That is including those revisions, 4 righ t ?
5 MR. ROWE That is sincluding the last revision.
6 We did review the VEPCO plan against the operator planning 7 objectives in 0654, which now are those standards which are 8 applied in the new rule.
9 So that is the basis for looking at it th at way.
10 We also looked at some of the other requirements that the 11 rule has.
They are indicated in VEPCO's plan.
So we will 12 review the VEPCO plan against the rule when it is published, 13
(
and we will submit an appendix to our emergency plan 14 evaluation when we finish that review.
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now, you say that FEMA is 16 reviewing the state and local, but you are not in that close l'7 contact with them.
The chart says that their report is 18 scheduled for August 19.
Are you in sufficiently close 19 contact to be --
20 MR. ROWE Yes, sir.
let me clarify that.
21 Basically, in two stages -- the first stage is that we are 22 in close contact with them concerning their report th a t will 23 be made with respect to the 0654 review.
But we are not in
[
24 close contact with respect to the second stage, which is the 3 final rule.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
36 g,. s 1
That is, we vant to get over the first hurdle, an 2 ve expect to receive their report approximately August 19, 3 just after the join t emergency response exercise.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
This joint exercise is nov 5 scheduled for the 16 th, is tha t right?
6 MR. ROWEs That is correct.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And when do you expect, after 8 having received the FEMA review, that NER vill reach a 9 judgment based on both the existing license plan exercise 10 and the FEMA review?
11 MR. 20WE I would expect sho rtly after we receive 12 their comments, depending on what they have to say about 13 implementation and the exercise.
('
14 MR. DENTON:
If the exercise is successful, we 15 would be on the same time. schedule as the 19th when FEMA's 16 report would come over.
17 We would be observing with them.
If the exercise 18 indicates problems in the integration of the plans, it vill 19 take somewhat longer.
20 And I think our proposal in this area is that 21 issuance of the license be contingent upon satisfactory 22 completion of that join t exercise and FEMA concerns that it Z3 was successful.
24 ME. DROMURICK:
That is it.
25 MR. DENTON:
John, I stole your punch line.
ALDERSCN REPCRTING COMPANY, :NC.
37 f
1 (Laughter) 2 3R. DROMUBICK:
That concludes our presentation.
3 CHAIRNAN AHEARNE:
I am sure we have many 4 questions.
Let me just ask a couple and save some of th e 5 others for later.
6 When we first addressed t'.te low power license and 7 e.fter the Commission addressed that issue, there were a 8 number of actions that were listed as power operation above 9 5 percent.
10 These focused primarily on the control room, and 11 this was covered in a March 31 memo from Harold Denton to 12 us.
Would someone be willing to speak to one of those?
13 MR. DROMURICK:
I would like Dr. Hanauer to l
14 address this matter.
15 MR. HANAUER:
We sent a team down to North Anna to 16 check on th e progress.
This was done some weeks ago.
They 17 had completed their low power items and were well on their 18 way toward their full power items.
19 They have now informed us that they have completed 20 all their full power items and we have asked the inspectors 21 to verify this.
22 They were going to do it either this week or 23 next.
I guess I cannot say whether that is actually 24 completed.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
'4 hen you speak of th e se ALDERSON REPO9 TING COMPANY, INC.
38 1 f ull power items, does that cover the list we had before us?
2 MR. HANAUER:
This covers the entire list, and if 3 indeed they have done exactly as they said -- and we no 4 reason not to believe it -- then we are ready to write off 5 on the control room for full power operation.
6 MR. WEBSTER:
I E E has reviewed the utility's 7 actions in the control room, and with the exception of final 8 verificaton of modifications conducted on a lamp's test 9 circuit, we have v'erified all 11 items.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARfE:
All right.
Well, I will hold 11 my remaining questions for a minute.
12 Victor?
13 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY:
Well, I wonder if you (k
14 could say a word about the auxiliary feedwater system here?
15 There has been a lot of discussion about operating these 16 systems, and it was not clear to me just what standards the l'7 system here met, other than that you were satisfied with 18 it.
It is a seismically qualified system?
19 MR. DROMURICK:
Yes, it is.
It has met all the 20 standards designed in our report, 0611.
And with the 21 exception of the flow indica tion meeting the TMI-2 22 requirement, we find this acce ptable.
It does meet all of 23 the standards that we set for the auxiliary feedvater system?
l 24 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY:
Are there any exemptions 25 involved in granting this license?
In the past there were.
/
')
k ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY, INC.
39 1
MR. DENTON:
There was in the first license.
2 MR. DROMURICK:
There was an Appendix J.
3 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY:
What is that about?
(
4 MR. DROMURICK That is containment leak testing 5 and it has to do with the testing of airlocks.
We had to 6 give an exemption for them.
7 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY:
Is this a regulation you 8 are planning to change?
9 MR. DENTON:
We have been plannin g to change it 10 for about a year and a half, I think.
It deals with -- it 11 is a routine exemption.
12 C0!!MISSIONER HEN DRIE:
I think most all of the --
13 well, all the drives, all the containments, it is a large k-14 number that have an exeption for the particular phrasing of 15 the test requirements in there.
16 MR. DENTON:
My recollection is it has to do with I'7 whether you test after each entry; whether you test the 18 airlock or whether you test the seals.
And we accepted the 19 substitute of testing the airlock each time.
20 (Commissioner Gilinsky left the Commissioner's 21 Conference Room at 3:56 p.m.)
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let me hold Commissioner 23 Gilinsky's place for a moment on his questions and turn to 24 Joe.
j l
3 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I don't have any questions l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i l
kO 1 at the moment.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right, let me ask one other 3 one and then I will turn to Peter.
4 Is there anyone from OPE?
Al Kenneke, OPE, have 5 you had a chance to review the submission of the SER?
6 MR. KENNEKE:
No, sir.
I just got a copy this 7 afternoon.
8 CHAIRMkN AHEARNE:
I see.
I had a number of, I 9 vould guess, detailed questions that came to mind as I went 10 through it, and I^ guess I will just give them to you to take 11 a look at them.
12 Peter?
13 COMMISSIONER 2RADFORD:
Can you explain the extent
(
14 and the way you use the standard review plan in reviewing 15 this license?
16 MR. DENTON:
The license -- the review of this 17 application o riginally started in 19 -
probably the 18 mid-1970's when North Anna Unit 1 was going through; unit 1 19 received a license, I believe, abou t three years ago.
The 20 standard review plan was adopted by the staff in 1975.
So 21 parts of the standard review plan were in standard use by 22 the staff, but this was a plant at which we required 23 documentation in the SER or deviations from the standard 24 review plan.
25 In 'the supplement we sent down today, we tried to ALDERSON PEPCRTING COMPANY, INC.
41 1 be very meticulous in docunenting which criteria were being 2 met in each subsection.
But th a t was not the case in the 3 original SER vritten for this plant.
4 Actually we have a more detailed tabulation that 5 ve put together to indicate which regulations have been 6 covered, to some extert, in the SER, if you are interested.
- 7. But it was -- its review was no different from that of o the r 8 plants in that vintage and no better documentation than 9 existed in the 1977-78 tine frane.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
When will the actual 11 license be sent down to us?
12 MR. DENTON:
I hope to have it down next week,and 13 I intend tha t it be what you had asked for in the Sequoyah f
14 license when we felt that would be the first one.
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Have you had that type of a 16 group working on this license?
I'7 MR. DROMU RICK :
Yes, they have done it.
18 CH AIRMAN AHEARNE:
Eecause on the Sequoyah l
19 license, we had asked f or a certain --
20 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
That is right.
In fact, 21 we had --
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We had done it at that tine --
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Thinking Sequoyah would be 24 the first one.
You anticipated what I was going to ask you, 25 which was whether this license in f act will fill that bill.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
d2 1
MR. EISENHUT:
It is the same thing.
We have done 2 the same thin g.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What do you now see as 4 being the next license in.
Is it still Salem -- Sequoyah --
5 Sequoyah -- Salem?
And at what intervals?
6 MR. DENTON:
Well, we pretty much completed the 7 Sequoyah review, except the issues of hydrogen and th e ice 8 condenser.
9 We are still receiving inputs on that review.
10 Salem has had several slowdowns in their progress unrelated 11 to _ our activities, such as the strike.
Do you recall when 12 Salem may be --
13 MR. EISENEUT:
Salem will be like in about the
(-
l 14 middle of August.
We are shooting to have, if we can work 15 out all the issues, probably something coming to the 16 Commission on tha t plan t probably in the last part of 17 August, the 22nd, I think was the ballpark which was my 18 ta rg e t.
19 MR. DENTON:
There are a coule in hearing and our 20 SERs will be going to boards.
I would not be surprised if 21 the next one coming back to the Commission was Farley 2 in Z! August.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is dropping behind.
24 MR. EISENHUT:
Salem would be a week or so behind v.
25 that and a week or so behind that, Farley.
And in addition ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
clLL9r&$UKtb2itB -
43 1 to that, we would be sending at least one to a hearing board 2 within the next week or so.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You bring in Farley in a 4 full operating license configuration or --
5 MR. DENTON:
Lov power.
6 MR. EISENHUT Lov power, yes.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Which would be the -- currently 8 the way you see it, which plant would be the first one that 9 vould be not coming in for the first time on a low power 10 license?
11 MR.. EISENHUT:
I believe it would be I think 12 the var we layed it out now -- in the interest of time, I 13 think the next half dozen we are going to split, lov k'
14 power-full power.
15 The one right nov ve are deciding which way it 16 goes is McGuire.
But I think that one is still before the l'7 appeals board on one or two issues.
18 It depends on which format we use.
Rut our 19 thinking on the-next probably three or f our or five after 20 these first three, we vill be going split, low pover-full 21 power...
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Any more?
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess to go back where I 25 really an on this is I want to have OPE take a look at some ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY, INC.
E
44 1 of my detailed questions and frankly since the FEMA exercise 2 that would be under -- FEMA evaluation, it would be the 3 first time that we would be -- the NRC would be having FEMA 4 do this as a part of an operating license.
5 I, myself, would like to see that FEMA review 6 before I pass on the operating license; not that I disagree 7~ with the basic concept of giving NRR the authority to go 8 ahead at a given point, but for the first time through in 9 the cycle, I would feel it is the responsibility f or me to 10 take a look at that part.
11 Then there is another issue that you have raised 12 that I think we have to have thought through, at least that 13 is where I am.
k 14 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD.
Yes.
15 CHAIRMAN AHFARNE:
Joe?
16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
For myself, I would go 117 ahead and authorize the director of reactor regulation to 18 issue a full power license when, in his judgment, 19 satisfactory completion has been achieved for the emergency 20 planning matters, which will presumably be after the 21 exercise.
22 I would be very interested in how the exercise 23 went and in FE"A's review of this first full power case.
24 But I would not for myself require that all of that be 25 detailed to the Commission in a briefing before I could i
ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
45 I bring myself to vote on it.
2 It seems to me I would be willing to grant to Mr.
3 Denton the responsibility as he has the authority to call 4 the Commission's attention to any untoward circumstances 5 that might lead him not to grant the license and to come 6 back to the Commission for discussion.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, as a general principle, I 8 have no problem with that.
In this specific case, the first 9 time, I would like to -- I don't see any from what I have 10 gone through, in reading that I have gone through, I have 11 not found anything which leads se to believe I would have 12 any substantial problem.
13 But Iwould like to see th e re sul ts.
I don 't know.
(
1-4 what Commissioner Gilinsky's additional questions would have 15 been, but I am sure he will relay them to you.
16 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Do we have a further North 17 Anna meeting of any kind scheduled?
18 (Pause) 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Pardon me.
I'm sorry, Peter.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, I just wondered if we 21 had a further meeting scheduled.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We will have to schedule 23 another meeting based upon when this -- it would be 24 predicated upon when Harold is ready to come back with the 25 FEMA finding.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
46 1
COMMISSIONER RHADFORD4 Right.
That is fine.
2 CHAIRMAN.AHEARNE:
All right.
Thank you very 3 much.
Thank you.
4 If the room would clear quietly, the Commission o
5 has two affirmation items, I believe, to address.
6 (Thereupon, at 3 :06 p.m., the meeting was 7 adjourned.)
8 9
10 11 12 e i 13
(_.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r
ALCERSON REPORT.NG COMPANY, INC.
L nruvry;nwvuut heave _
agvn 2
m.
-J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This. is to certify that the attachect proceedings before the
.g COMMISSION MEETING in the satter of:
Public Meeting - Discussion of North Anna Full Power License
- Date o f Proceeding:
July 31, 1980 Docket: liu=b er:
Flace-of Froceeding:
Washington, D. C.
were held. Is herein appears, and thac this is the original transcrip thereof for the file of the Coc=ission.
David S. Parker Official Reporter ( Typ ed )
4 s
hu
/
I.C
'mf'%. L.J.?
- e. e.?
. ? O. r. 0..
7..,)
. 44 4 i
1
)
l l
I i
6
A
.~
k NRC STAFF REVIEW QE NORTH ANNA UNIT 2 (VEPCO)
EDE FULL POWER OPERATION COMMISSION BRIEFING - JULY 31, 1980 e
e 00TLfk5 e
PURPOSE OF MEETING e
LICENSEE'S ACTION SINCE FL/EP LICENSE ISSUANCE RESULTS OF LOW POWER TESTING PROGP#1 e
NRL OL REVIEW k
NON-TMI ISSUES TMI ISSUES
~
e RECOMMENDATION s
^
LICENSEE ACTIONS SINCE LP ISSUANCE e
NRC FL APPROVAL-APRIL 11, 1980 e
INITIAL CRITICALITY - JUNE 12, 1980 e
NRC LP TESTING APPROVAL - JULY 3, 1980 e
LOW POWER TESTING PROGRAM BEGAN JULY 3,1980 LOW POWER TESTING COMPLETED JULY 10,198b ~
~~
(l e
e CURRENT STATUS OF PLANT - HOT STANDBY e
PLANT READY TO START POWER ASCENSION PROGRAM e
,e
)
COMPLETED ITEMS 1.
NATURAL CIRCULATION NORMAL CONDITIONS.
2.
NC WITil SIMULATED LOSS OF 0FFSITE AC.
3.
NC WITil LOSS OF PRESSURIZER llEATERS.
11.
EFFECTS OF STEAM GENERATOR ISOLATION ON NC.
5.
NC AT REDUCED' PRESSURE.
C00LDOWNCAPABILITYOFCHARGING/LETD0hNSYSTEH'.
6.
I 7.
SIMULATED LOSS OF ALL AC.
l RESULTS OF LOW' POWER TESTING PROGRAM 1.
LP TESTS CONDUCTED SAFELY.
2.
LP TESTS PROVIDED MEANINGFUL INFORMATION.
I 3.
PROVIDED BASE LINE DATA FOR SPECIFIC PLANT CllARACTERISTICS.
11.
CONFIRMATION OF NATURAL CIRCULATION llEAT REMOVAL CAPACITY.
i 5.
DEMONSTRATED CAPABILITY OF PLANT UNDER LOW POWER CONDITIONS.
6.
PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATOR TRAINING.
NRC REVIEW e
NON-TMI ITEMS INCLUDING FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONS e
TMI ITEMS INCLUDING SHIFT STAFFING s
DATED ITEMS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS e
e t
7-
,,,9 FIRE PROTECTION e
MEETS APPENDIX A TO BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION APCSB 9.5-1 AND GDC 3 e
IMPLEMENTATION TO BE COMPLETED BY NOVEMBER 1, 1980
[_'
EXCEPT FOR ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN SYSTEM BY APRIL 1981 l
i
,,,p EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATIONS e
VEPC0 SUBf1ITTAL DATED JUNE 20, 1980 IN RESPONSE TO NUREG 0558 e
INITIAL RESULTS INDICATE A NUMBER OF APPARENT DEFICIENCIES j
i INCLUDES VALVES, MOTORS, MOTOR CONTROL CENTERS, AND CABLE MOST LOCATED OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT e
STATUS C
CURPENTLY ACCEPTABLE TO STAFF ON BASIS 0F SHORT TERM OPERATIONS, EQUIPMENT HAS HAD SOME QUALIFICATION AND ACTUAL CONDITIONS EXPECTED ARE LESS THAN THOSE REQUIRED e
VEPC0 WILL COMPLETE REVIEW BY NOVEMBER 1, 1980 e
VEPC0 WILL FOLLOW TECH SPECS IF DEFICIENCIES FOUND e
DEFICIENCIES WILL BE CORRECTED PROMPTLY e
STAFF WILL COMPLETE SER BY FEBRUARY 1,1981 PER COMMISSION MAY 23RD ORDER l
w
( *>
()
1 CONBINED-BOTHUNITS0PERATING
~
REQUIRED L'i C E'N S E'D E0R14 SHIFT POSITION PER SHIFT SCHEDULE UNITS 182 UNIT 1 ONLY 5
12 2
R0 3
12 12 5
CONCLUSION STAFFING IS ADEQUATE FOR FULL POWER OPERATION O
0
- e...
I NUREG-0694 - DATED REQUIREMENTS VEPC0 COMMITTED TO COMPLETE ALL 15 ITEMS - HOWEVER FIVE WILL BE DEFERRED AS FOLLOWS:
' ' ITfn ER05 ID.
II.B.1 RSC VENTS 1/1/81 12/81 II.B.3 POST ACCIDENT SAMPLING 1/1/81 4/81 II.F.1(c)
HYDROGEN MONITORING 1/1/81 4/81 II.F.1(E)
NOBLE GAS EFFLUENT MONITOR 1/1/81 7/81
]
II.F.2 RV WATER LEVEL 1/1/81 12/81 BASES PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION INTERIM BACK-UP PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES i
I l
NORTH ANNA POWER STATION EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS e
REVISED PLAN (VEPC0)
IMPLEMENTED ON JULY 25 COMPLIES WITH NUREG 0654 COMPLIES WITH FINAL RULE ON EMERGENCY PLANNING e
JOINT EMERGENCY RESPONSE EXERCISE o
VEPCO, STATE, 5 LOCAL COUNTIES E
EXERCISE PLANNED FOR AUGUST 16 CRITIQUE PLANNED FOR AUGUST 17 e
FEMA REPORT ON STATE AND LOCAL EMERGENCY PREFAREDNESS SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 19 e
RECOMMENDATION PER COMMISSION GUIDANCE, DEFER FULL POWER ISSUANCE PENDING SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF THE JOINT EMERGENCY EXERCISES
i t..
f 1
RECOMMENDATION s
i e
AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF FP LICENSE AFTER SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION.0F JOINT EMERGENCY PLAN EXERCISES i
i 1
b O
w-
--m,-.
,,,,,.-,,_wg,,,,
e,. _, - -.
,n--,,-,,:,
.w
, - - - - - -,