ML20031B142
| ML20031B142 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1981 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-1872, NUDOCS 8109300295 | |
| Download: ML20031B142 (15) | |
Text
_
' ATE ISSUED:
7/18/81 MINUTES OF THE g /5./8 M l ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON g
/
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
/ 8 8 f/c4/
/,l JUNE 29,1981 6d' k((
H0LIDAY INN SOUTH g
DALLAS / FORT WORTH AIRPORT 60kN-TEXAS The ACRS Subcommittee on Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) held a meeting at the Holiday Inn, 4440 West Airport Freeway, Dallas / Fort Worth Airport South, Texas, to review the application of the Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO) to operate Units 1 and 2 of the CPSES.
Mr. Sam Duraiswamy was the Designated Federal Employee for the meeting. A list of documents provided to the Subcommittee is included in Attachment A and a tentative presentation schedule is included as Attachment B.
ATTENDEES f
M. Bender (Subcommittee Chairman), C. P. Siess, W. KerpjM*,
ACRS:
J. J. Ray.
- ,2 s \\
/
Principal oh Y2 NRC Speakers:
S. Burwell.
3 Principal
\\9 hU Speakers for
\\
cP 5
f D. Chapman, D. Wade, D. Braswell, T. Talley.
g )/Q the Applicant:
H. Schmidt, J. Marshall, B. Clements, J. Kuyken a 1,
^
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN Mr. Bender, the Subcommittee Chairman convened the meeting at 1:25 p.m.
and indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to review the Application of TUGC0 to operate Units 1 and 2 of CPSES.
He said that the Subcommittee would try to cover as many agenda items as possible and those items that did not get covered at this meeting would be included for discussion at the future meeting that is tentatively scheduled to be held on July 22, 1981 at Washington, D.C.
He indicated that the Subcommittee had received neither written comments nor requests for time to m&ke oral statements from members of the public.
PRESENTATION BY THE NRC STAFF - MR. S. BURWELL Hr. Burwell provided a brief status of NRC Staff's review of the operating license application of TUCCO. He pointed out that the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Peport (SER) of CPSES was previously scheduled to be issued on June 11,1981; however due to large number of unresolved open issues the y
6107 g 1
2
If Comanche Peak Meeting June 29,1981 SER issuance has been delayed. According to the present schedule, the SER 13 expected to be issued on July 8,1981; the Supplemental SER (SSER) is scheduled to be issued on September 18, 1981 and the decision on the CPSES oparating license application is expected to be made during October 1981.
UNRESOLVED OPEN ISSUES AS OF JUNE 29, 1981 Mr. Burwell said that as of June 29, 1981, there are 34 Non-TMI related and 13 TMI related open items still remain to be resolved.
He expects that 9 of the Non-TMI related itens and one of the TMI related items may be resolved prior to the issuance of the SER; 12 of the Non-TMI related issues and one of the TMI related issues are expected to be resolved prior to the August 5-8, 1981 ACRS f all Committee meeting. The remaining dpen issues (13 non-TMI related items and 11 TMI related items) will be resolved subsequent to t!.e August ACRS meetir.g.
Mr. Bender asked how many of the unresolved open issues are unique to CPSES.
Mr. Burwell responded that the items on "Use of Hafnium Control Rods", and
" Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment" are unique to CPSES.
He stated that CPSES is the first Westinghouse plant that uses hafnium con-trol rods, and it is also the first plant to meet the requirements of IEEE-323-19'/4 for environmental qualification of electrical equipment.
With regard to the schedule for the resolution of open issues, Mr. Bender commented that it does not seem appropriate to have so many unresolved open items and it would be very difficult for the ACRS to review the OL application for this plant with so many unresolved issues. The NRC Staff ought to be pursuing the resolution of these issues as best as it can so as to resolve most of the substantive issues soon. Mr. B'urwell responded that they will try to resolve these issues as fast as they can.
PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT Plant Design and Schedule - Mr. Schmidt Mr. Schmidt stated that CPSES consists of two Westinghouse reactors, each with a rating of 3425 MWt.
Several structures such as the Auxiliary Building,
b Comanche Peak Meeting June 29,1981 Fuel Building, etc. are shared by both units. The containment for each unit is a steel-lined, reinforced concrete designed by Gibbs & Hill Inc.,
the Architcct Engineer for CPSES.
He said that the CPSES design is similar in various aspects to McGuire Trojan, and North Anna nuclear pl ants.
Mr. Schmidt reviewed briefly the schedule and the current status of CPSES, indicating that the preliminary design studies for CPSES were performed in 1971 and the construction permit was issued in 1974.
Application for the operating license was docketed in April 1978.
At present, Unit 1 is 88% complete and Unit 2 is 52% complete. First core for Unit I has been fabricated and is available for sh' ant to the site when "equired.
Organization - Mr. Clements Mr. Clements discussed briefly the organizational structure of tha Applicant.
He said that Texas Utilities Company (TUCO) is the ha' ding company of three electric utility subsidiaries: Dallas Power & Light Company (DP&L), Texas Electric Service Company (TESCO) and Texas Power & Light Company (TP&L).
Texas Utilities Generating Company, and Texas Utilities Sei41ces, Inc. (TUSI) are wholly owned subsidiaries c' TUGCO.
The lead Applicant is TUGC0 which has corporate responsibility for the design, construction and operation of CPSES which includes the functions of procurement, fuel management and quality assurance. He said that TUSI has been designated by TUGC0 to furnish design, engineering, construction, licensing, and engineering technical support for CPSES.
With regard to the relationship between TUGC0 and TUSI, Mr. Bender commented that it should be made sure that adequate c' emunication exists between these o
two organizations so as to preclude the possibility of dropping some important issues between the cracks. Mr. Clements stated that it is an integrated organization.
They have clear understanding that TUGC0 has the total responsibility for the plant and that the services provided by TUSI would be controlled by TUGCO.
Comanche Peak Meeting June 29,1981 Mr. Ray asked about the role of the Operations Review Committee. Mr. Clements responded that there are two Operations Review Committees; one, the Station Operations Review Committee (SORC), is composed of certain station supervisory and technical personnel.
Its function is to review certain issues, such as proposed ph sical changes to nuclear-safety-related systems, changes of
/
nuclear-safe ty-related procedures, unplanned events that have operational nuclear-safety significance, etc. The other, Operations Review Committee (ORC), which is chaired by the Vice President, Nuclear, will review certain activities such as, safety evaluation of design changes, procedural chi /ges, tests or experiments which involve unreviewed safety issues.
Mr. Bender asked whether the functions of the ORC have been written down in some document associated with CPSES.
Mr. Clements responde'd that they haven't done so.
Mr. Bender suggested that the Applicant write oown the various functions of the ORC as soon as possible so as to enable ACRS and others to have a clear perspective of the main functions of this Committee. Mr. Clements stated that they have already discussed what the functions of the ORC should be, and they plan to write them duwn in the near future.
In response to another question from Mr. Bender as to what kind of contribution did they get from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) to the CPSES, Mr. Clements stated that they have got some input from INP0 for the training However, they haven't got any input from INP0 for the organizational program.
setup for CPSES. They plan to have INP0 review their organizational arrange-ment prior to startup.
Mr. Bender commented that it would be wise to take advantage of the, experience and advice of INP0.
He suggested that TUGC0 setup a schedule for INP0's review of 'their organizational arrangement. Mr. Clements responded that they will do so.
,omanche Peak Meeting June 29,1981 In response to a question from Mr. Bender with regard to the bases for the development of CPSES maasgement structure, Mr. Clements stated that it is based on the information obtained from several nuclear plant operators that have successful organizations.
l Mr. Bender indicated that it would be helpful to know how CPSES organization compares with other successful organizations of certain nuclear plant opera-l tors.
He suggested that TUGC0 provide a comparison of their organizational structure with certain other organizations of nuclear plant operators who have successful and well-structured organizations at the next meeting that is tentativcly scheduled to be held on July 22, 1981. Mr. Cletnents indicated that they will provide such comparison.
Training Program - Mr. Kuykendall Mr. Kuykendall discussed briefly the training program associated with CPSES.
He stated that the m'in objective of the training program is te
(
ensure that personnel are adequately trained to perform their normal duties j
and also to perform certain special functions to cope with emergency situa-l tions. The training program includes operation, maintenance, engineering, and other technical areas.
He stated that there are three categories of training:
l 1.
General areas of employee training.
2.
Radiation worker training.
3.
Special training.
f He said that the training Staff at CPSES presently consists of a Director, a training supervisor, and seven training specialists.
All mer.bers of the train-l ing staff have nuclear operations, maintenance, and/or training experience back-i ground in the Navy Nuclear Program.
In addition, the Director of the training program has received a NRC Senior Reactor Operator's license.
He pointed out that they are in the process of buying a simulator which will be used for operator. training, requalification training of the operators, and for general i
training of plant management and other plant staff.
Comanche Peak Meeting June 29,1981 In response to a gjestion from Mr. Bender as to whether the training program includes training courses such as reactor theory, fluid dynamics, etc.,
Mr. Kuykr9dall stated that they are included in the training program.
Mr. Bender asked whether they have consulted with other nuclear plant organizations with regard to developing training programs. Mr. Kuykendall responded tnat they have been looking at training programs of certain utilities.
Mr. Bender asked again whether they have discussed the training program with other plants that have obtained operating licenses recently. Mr. Kuykendall responded that they haven't discussed with too many plant operators except the
~
Summer nuclear plant personnel.
Mr. Bender suggested that a comparison of the CPSES training program with those of certain nuclear plants who have received operating license recently would be helpful; he suggested that the Applicant provide this comparison in the next meeting.
Plans to Handle Maintenance, Inservice Inspection and Pre-Operational Testing -
Mr. Kuykendall Mr. Kuykendall said that at present, the CPSES maintenance departsent consists of about 90 personnel including 30 experienced mechanics and electricians and several supervisors and technical personnel.
In addition, there are about 35 instrument and control technicians.
Mr. Kuykendall stated that based on a systematic evaluation effort, a managed maiatenance program has been developed. This program is designed to provide the plant staff with the maintenance data a'nd other necessary information to support proper planning and management of the maintenance activities. They have two sets of maintenance plans; one, an on-line preventive maintenance plan that includes all those maintenance activities that can be performed when tne plant is in operation; the other includes maintenance activities that can be perforned dLeing plant outage for refueling.
m Comanche Peak Meeting June 29,1981 Indicating that operating experience shows that some of the safety problems in certain plants are attributable to maintenance activities, Dr. Siess asked whether maintenance activities are carefully scrutinized by some group to make sure that they do not present any complications to the plant.
Mr. Kuykendall responded that in the maintenance department there is a maintenance engineering group consisting of skilled, experienced people; this group reviews the maintenance procedures for accuracy and then these procedures are submitted to the Station Operations Review Committee for 6pprov al. They have also instituted a procedure in the operations depart-ment to double check and verify c,afety-related maintenance activities.
Dr. Siess commented that the personnel reviewing the maintenance procedures l
should be very knowledgeable about not only the systems that are being maintained but also about all the interactions among various systems.
l In response to a question from Mr. Bender as to how the operations department plans to maintain control over the maintenance and construction activities that might be going on at the plant during the plant operation, Mr. Kuykendall l
stated that they have procedures that require that all maintenance activities during plant operation should have work permits approved by the operations shift supervisor; such procedures will enable the operations department to maintain control over the maintenance activities.
In addition, all maintenance activities are reviewed by the maintenance and operations department to make sure that there will not be any adverse reactions resulting from maintenance activities.
Mr. Bender commented that operating experience shows that there had been some l
adverse communication between maintenance personnel and operating personnel.
He believds that by strengthening the communication link between operating department and maintenance department, such consequences can be minimized.
He stated that the Subcommittee may want to hear more about this issue at the future meeting.
s Comanche Peak Meeting June 29,1981 With regard to the startup program, Mr. Kuykendall stated that TUGC0 is responsible for the overall administration and technical direction of the CPSES startup program. The startup program is divided into three testing phases:
prerequisite testing, preoperational testing, and initial startup ter41ng. He stated that preoperational testing is expected to begin prior to fuel loading in January 1982.
Preparation of the initial startup test program is expected to begin in the first quarter of 1982.
Quality Assurance Program - Mr. Chapman Mr. Chapman reviewed briefly the quality assurance organization, indicating that it is divided into four basic groups:
quality assurance services, special projects, vendor compliance, and construction quality ' assurance. He said that the. construction quality assurance group is located at the site.
I At present, there are about 143 quality control inspectors at the site.
1 In response to a question from Dr. Siess as to whether principal emphasis is placed on the prevention of mistakes or detection of mistakes after they l
l have occurred, Mr. Chapman responded that he believes that the major emphasis l
should be placed on the prevention of errors. However, he believes also that there should be a strong corrective action to prevent the recurrence of the same mistakes.
Systems Interaction Evaluation - Mr. Wade Mr. Wade said that the system interaction evaluation program consists of two parts:
physical interaction evaluation and control systems interaction evaluations. He discussed briefly the physical interaction evaluation part of the program. He stated that the purpose of the physical interaction evaluation is to ensure that all essential components will perform their I
intended functions following a high-energy line break or a seismic event.
Mr. Wade stated that the implementation of the physical interaction evaluation program is done in two parts.
First, they review the drawings to identify potential interactions; then they walk through the plant to verify the potential interactions that were identified during the review
i Comanche Peak Meeting June 29, 1981 of drawings. Any unacceptable consequences identified during the plant walk through will be reviewed and corrective actions will be taken.
Mr. Ray asked, af ter certain corrective actions have been made, will there be another plant walk-through to make sure that the corrective actions taken have not caused new problems? Mr. Wade responded that as part of the cor-rective actions, they perform a review to makt sure that there will not be any new interactions as a result of the corrective actions taken.
l l
l l
Dr. Kerr asked whether they looked at the possible system interactions involving fork-lift trucks. Mr. Kuykendall responded that they haven' t done a system interaction study specifically to evaluate the fssue associated f
with fork-lift. trucks. However, they will give consideration to such a study.
l Mr. Estes discussed the systems interactions evaluations pertinent to control
(
systems. He stated that they have performed analyses for different types of control system failures such as, sensor failures, loss of power to single protection set or control group, etc. The results of the analyses indicate that failure of any sensor, and loss of power to any protection set or control group, will not result in any event worse than those identified in the FSAR.
h Mr. Bender asked whether they have looked at the problem that might arise i
from sudden depressurization of air systems. Mr. Estes responded that they I
have not analyzed the failure of the air systems. Mr. Schmidt added that he believes that air systems failures have been analyzed by the architect engineer as part of the rormal design process.
Mr. Bender commented that operating experience shows *. hat air system failures in certain plants have caused some significes, reac tions.
He suggested that the operating personnel look at these systems so as to have a clear understanding of the consequences of their failures.
i
Comanche Peak Meeting June 29,1981 Onsite and Offsite Power System Reliability - Mr. Talley Mr. Talley said that the Texas Utilities (TV) transmission system serves as the main outlet and source of offsite power for th. CPSES. Connection of the station outputs to the system is cchieved via 345-KY overhead lines to the CPSES high-voltage switchyard.
Separate connections to the 138-KY grid and the 345-KV switchyard provide independent and reliable offsite power sources to the Class IE systems of each unit.
The 138-KV line is physically separated from the 345-KV line.
Further, there is no inter-connection between the 138-KV and 345-KY switchyards.
He indicated that the physical separation of switchyards, transmission lines, primary and backup systems, and the stable transmission grid systs.n minimize the probability of simultaneous failures of offsite power sources.
Mr. Ray asked what would happen to the plant if there is complete blackout?
Mr. Talley responded that he believes that total blackout is somewhat in-credible. Anyhow, he believes that Westinghrase Onwers' Group is performing a study to develop generic and plant specific procedures to handle AC blackout incident.
Dr. Kerr asked whether they have made any studies to determine the probability of the loss of offsite power. Mr. Talley responded that he does not believe that such Etudies were done.
Dr. Kerr commented that he does not understand how one can say that the system is highly reliable without performing a quantitative probabilistic study.
He suggested that the Applicant per form a probabilistic study to determine quantitatively the probability of loss of offsite power.
Mr. Bender commented that he believes that the station blackout issue is an importa*nt safety issue. The Applicant should place a high level of importance in resolving this issue. He suggested that the Applicant provide more information with regard to the ability to survive a station blackout incident. He stated that the most important thing in the staticn blackout issue is to establish how long the plant can survive under a station blackout incident.
l 1
4 Comanche Peak Meeting June 29,1981 Mr. Ray suggested that it is advisable to perform a study to determine how long the plant can survive under a station blackout situation, and then to plan what they need to do to restore the power before that time expires.
Mr. Call, from Westinghouse, pointed out that Westinghouse is performing a study for Westinghouse Owners' Group on a hypothetical loss of all AC power. Based on that study, they plan to develop emergency procedures to handle loss of all AC power.
CPSES, as a member of the Westinghouse Owners' Group, will have *.tose procedures for incorporation into their plant emergency program.
Secondary Side Water Chemistry Control - Mr. Brsswell Mr. Braswell stated that, based on operating experience and research data, several improvements have been incoporated to improve the secondacy side water chemistry control.
Some of the changes made to the secondary system arr; as #ollows:
1.
Full flow condensate polishers.
2.
Increased continuous blowdown capacity.
3.
304 stainless steel feedwater heater tubes.
4.
Integrally-grooved condenser tube sheets.
S.
Improved steam generator design.
6.
All volatile treatment.
f Mr. Braswell stated that CPSES secondary side water chemistry control program is designed in such a way to produce a high quality makeup water.
Mr. Bender stated that the Subcommittee may want to hear more about this topic at the next meeting.
FUTURE MEETING Mr. Bender said that another Subcommittee meeting is tentatively scheduled to be held on July 22, 1981 at Washington, D.C. to continue the review of the application to operate units 1 and 2 of CPSES.
At that meeting the Subcommittee may want to discuss the following items:
Comanche Peak Meeting June 29,1981 1.
Steam generator integrity.
2.
Contingency plans for correction of steam generator tube problems.
3.
Effects of radiation exposuce on pressure vessel reliability.
4.
Reactor pressure vessel thermal shock issues.
5.
Plant security system.
6.
Further discussion on CPSES' operator training program - Comparison of CPSES' training program with those of some other plants.
7.
Resolution of post-TMI issues.
8.
Input from INP0 for CPSES organizational setup and training progra.a.
9.
Emergency planning.
- 10. Other issues as identified in the future.
Mr. Bender thanked all participants and adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p.m.
NOTE:
Additional meeting details can be obtained ' rom a ranscript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC, or can be purchased from Alderson Reporting Company, Inc., 400 Virginia Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20024, (202 554-2345.
e
i,
i r
_A_.'TACHMENT A l
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE i
i Portions of the CPSES FSAR Pertinent to Organization. Training Program, Quality Assurance Proo am, Onsite and Offsite Electrical Systems.
I l
n I
I p
l l
l
..I
1 i-6/23/81 l.
TENTATIVE PRESENTATION SCHEDULE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON COMANCHE PEAK 182 HOLIDAY INN L
DALLAS /FT. WORTH AIRPORT SOUTH 4440 WEST AIRPORT FREEWAY (214-256-4541)
JUNE 29, 1981 SITE VISIT Leave Hotel at 7:00 a.m.
l l
1:00 pm - 1:15 pm 1.
OPENING REMARKS BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN 2.
NRC STAFF'S PRESENTATION (Burwell) 1:15 pm - 1:30 pm (a) Status of NkC review (b) Brief Status of Major Differing Technical Issues as of June 29, 1931 and the schedule for re-solution of these issues.
3.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION 1:30 pm - 4:45 pm 3.1 (a)
Introduction (Plant Design & Schedule)
(Schmidt)
(b) Organization (Clemens) 1: 30 pm - 2:15 pm (c) Nuclear-Related Operating Experience of Management and Other Key Personnel (Clemens) l (d) Training Program (Kuykendall)
(e) Plans to Handle Maintenance, Inservice Inspection and Pre-operational Testing (Kuykendall) 3.2 (a) Quality Assurance Program (construction and operation) (Chapman) 2:30 pm - 2:45 pm (b)
(Experience in) Quality Control Problems and Their Resolution (Chapman)
~
ATTACHMENT B
\\
\\
O Comanche Peak 182 Meeting June 29, 1981 3.3 Systems Interaction Evaluation (Wade) 2:45 pm - 3:00 pm 3.4 Secondary Side Water Chemistry Control (Braswell) 3:00 pm - 3:15 pm e
BREAK 3:15 pm - 3:25.pm 3.5
( r.1 team Generator Integrity (b) Contin cy Plans f orrection of eam Gene or e hoMems POSTPONED g
3:25 pm - 4:15 pm (c) Effects o ediati Exposure on Press Vessel Reliab ty (d) eactor Pressure Vessel Therma Shock Issues s
3.6 (a) Electrical Blackout History (Talley) 4:16 pm - 4:30 pm (b) Onsite and Off-site Power System 4:30 pm - 4:45 pm Reliability (Talley) 4.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (if ar,y) 4:45 pm - 5:00 pm 5.
SUBCOMMITTEE REMARKS (Bender) 5:00 pm - 5:15 pm Identification of Items for the July 22, 1981 Mee' ng ADJOURN 5:15 pm