ML20054J033
| ML20054J033 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1982 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8206250408 | |
| Download: ML20054J033 (118) | |
Text
. . . _- _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . . - _ - ., _
NCCI.ZAR RIw ATCRY CCleCSSICN
/
b k6 U. is '
COMMISSION MEETING ,
s l
In 9A Mat *:a cf: PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION OF FULL POWER OPERATING
! LICENSE FOR LaSALLE -1 DATI: June 22, 1982 PAGZ,S: 1 - 97 AT: Washington, D. C. ,
J
\
l
.HDERSON REPORTING -
- f. Q '
400 vi visia Ave. , S .W. Wash d .ct== , D. C. 20024 Talaphc:a: (202) 554-2345 !'
B206250400 820622 i PDR 10CFR PDR PT9.7
i l
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ---
4 DISCUSSION OF FULL POWER OPER ATING LICENSE FOR LaSALLE-1 5 ---
6 PUBLIC HEETING 7 ---
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130 9 1717 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
10 Tuesday, June 22, 1982 11 The Commission convened, pursuant to notice, at 12 2:03 p.m.
13 BEFORE:
14 NUNZIO P ALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 15 JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 16 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 17 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
18 S. CHILK L. BICKWIT 19 F. REMICK E. CHRISTENBURY 20 A. BOUR5IA D. EISENHUT 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, MMTXcimnJXEU%M Y:VSR1r3h%9rl RR KMD 66F& FPM&n~1
2 1 H. DENTON K. KEPPLER 2 R. WALKER
. NORELIUS 3
AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
4 R. NATTSON 5 R. VOLLNER C. WILLIAMS .
6 B. LEE 7 * *
- 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
/
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United Sta'tes Nuclear Regulatory Comission held on June'22, 1982 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Kasnington, D. C. The '
meeting was open to public a.ttendance and observation. This transcript
- has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. .
The transcript is intended. solely for general infomational purcoses.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or infomal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this . transcript do not necessarily reflect final deteminations or
- p ; beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any* statement or argument contained herein, except as the Comission may authorize.
k
3 1
Ea9GII2IEEE t
2 CHAIREAN PALLADINO Good afternoon, ladies 3 and gentlemen. The Commission meets this af ternoon to 4 receive a briefing from the Staff on a full power 5 license for LaSalle Unit 1.
6 The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 7 issued a low power license for LaSalle Unit 1 on April 8 17 of this year. The low power license for LaSalle was 9 conditioned to preclude the Licensee f rom going beyond 10 zero power testing until the NRC Staff approves the 11 resolution of pending allegations raised in the petition 12 regarding damage rabar and the adequacy of the off-gas 13 building root.
14 The Staff is in receipt of two petitions 15 requesting suspension of operations at LaSalle. The 16 first is a request from the Illinois Attorney General.
17 The second is from the Illinois Friends of the Earth.
18 Region III NRR and ICE are participating in the review 19 of allegations provided in the petitions. The 20 investigation is still ongoing, so when we get to 21 matters under investigation and discuss them, the 22 seeting vill have to be closed.
23 The Staff is prepared to highligh t several 24 items of their safety review, experience of the plant 25 since fuel loading and readiness of the plant for full i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
. . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ /wwrremvvist L avn__ m r6tEt Sr.sm afr.n cos5Evc
4 1 power operation. So unless any of my fellov
'2 Cosaissioners have other opening remarks, I am going to 3 turn the meeting over to Mr. Denton.
4 COHNISSIONER AHEARNEa May I just ask one 5 question? Is it seen at the moment that there vill be a 6 necessity to close the maeting at some point?
7 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN0s I think the intent is for 8 Region III to report on the investigation and va rious 9 things.
10 COHEISSIONER AHEARNE: And tha t would be --
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s In a closed session.
12 COHNISSIONER AHEARNEa So that would ccme at 13 the end of the rest of the discussion?
14 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN0s That is what I would hope 15 for.
16 HR. DENTON: Shall we proceed?
17 CHAIBHAN PALLADINO: Yes.
18 MR. DENTON: I consider today a status 19 briefing. We are very nearly complete with our safety 20 review for this plant for full power. As you mentioned, l 21 ve have not completed action on the 2.206 petitions and 22 we do propose to close the meeting near the end of this 23 session so that you can get the report from Region III.
24 There are several unique features of this 25 plant that will be described. One of them is this is ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC,
5 1 the first BWR that is being considered for full power 0 license since TMI. Ano ther is that this BWR has a Mark 3 II containment which will be the first that the 4 Commission has considered of this type.
5 A third is the fact that you will be hearing 6 the results of an independent design review conducted on 7 a safety system of this platt in order to confirm the 8 adequacy of the architect-engineer's design process.
9 Another issue we will call to your attention 10 is that we propose to issue a license good for 40 years 11 f rom the time of the OL rather than from the time of the 12 CP. There had been a petition at one time before the 13 Commission to this effect and it was decided that this 14 sort of change was within the Commission's prerogative 15 and we hava left a spot on the agenda to talk about 16 issuing a 40-year license from the OL date rather than 17 the CP date.
18 ' Finally, the issues raised by the 2.206 19 petitions are unique to this plant.
20 I have with me today the Regional 21 Administrator, Jim Keppler, Roger Walker, who used to be l
22 the resident inspector and I think has recently been 23 promoted, Darryl Eisenhut, who will conduct the first 24 part of the briefing, and Tony Borneo, the project 25 sanager with NRR for LaSalle.
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
6 1 So if there are no questions, I will turn it 2 over to Darryl.
3 MR. EISENHUT: Thank you. May I have the 4 first slide, please?
5 (Slide.)
6 This slide is simply an outline of what we 7 will be going through today. I should point out th e se t 8 of slides that we will be using today are slightly
(
9 dif ferent than the drafts that we sent down earlier. It 10 is essentially the same substance. We have revised to 11 clarif y and get a little more to the point.
12 We will briefly discuss the plant. This plant 13 looks like the description. We picked out several 14 topics f rom our review, as you can see here, that we 15 will be walking through. Some are items that were 16 highlighted during the review. Some are unique items 17 and we will try to capture where those are.
18 Following that, Region III will give a report 19 on the experience of the readiness of the plant, the 20 overall status of where we are.
21 One ites that I will highlight at the end is 22 the differences between the draft license that we sent 23 down and the license that was issued on April 17. I 24 will just point those out very simply for the ease of 25 reviewing the draft.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
_ _ - - - - - - _ - - - _ m__ - em - - J
7 1 Could I have the next slide?
2 (Slide.)
3 This is just a general overview of the plant.
4 As Harold pointed out, it is the first BWR to be 5 undergoing a f ull power licensing review since Three 6 Hile Island. It is the first Mark II BWR-5 to go into 7 operation in the United Sta tes . It is the lead pla n t.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Where has there been 9 another Mark II?
to 5R. EISENHUTa The plant Carauso in Italy, I 11 believe, is the lead Mark II in the world, and it .vas 12 the lead plant, as you will see in a couple of moments 13 when we get to that slide. In fact, it had run some 14 tests in front of LaSalle station.
15 COHNISSIONER AHEARNEa What about the plant in 16 Taiwan?
17 5R. EISENHUTa The plant in Taiwan, I believe, 18 is a Nark III, is that correct? It is the lead Mark 19 III, isn't it, at Kuo Sheng.
20 The plant is located near Seneca, Illinois.
21 It is a 3300 megawatt plant with the standard almost 100 22 megawatt electrics. It got its construction permit, as 23 You can sea, in late 1973. It tendered its OL 24 application in 1977. At this time the first unit is 25 complete. The Unit 2 is expected to be complete in i
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8 1 .early 1983.
2 The licensing startup schedule dates back, of 3 course, to April 17 when we issued the low power 4 license. The Licensee immediately started loading fuel 5 the next day, on April 18. On a BWR it takes about two 6 weeks to load the fuel. It was completed on April 30.
7 The plant vent c.ritical early yesterday morning. Later 8 on in the presentation, Region III will summarize the 9 operating experience of what has happened during the 10 last couple of months.
11 (Slide.)
12 On the next slide is a summary of the Mark II 13 con tainment issues. As I said, it is the first plant in 14 the process. The containment is a steel-lined, post 15 tension concrete structure, which is commonly referred 18 to as the over-under design.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What is that?
18 HR. EISENHUT If I could go to the next 19 slide --
20 (Slide.)
21 NR. EISENHUT: Here is a picture of an 22 over-under design.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Of course.
24 HR. EISENHUT Could you turn the slide 25 around? The slide is backwards.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
9 1 You will see on the lefthand side the word 2 "diaphras". The diaphras is a floor that separates what 3 is somewhat of a -- it is shaped something like an 4 inverted cone or a cone pointing up. That is the dry 5 well that is signified there. The water or the wet well j 6 in this plant is on the bottom. !
7 There are a large number of downconers 8 something on the order of two feet in diameter that 9 protrude down into the water. So rather than having the to Mark I design, which is sometimes referred to as the 11 light bulb in torus, this is commonly an over and under 12 design.
13 The plant, the reactor, the main part of the 4
14 safety systems inside the primary containment sits over 15 a pool of water. The basic principle is very simple.
16 Given an accident in the dry well, the steam and water 17 is sent through the downconers through the water, 18 thereby condensing the steam. It is commonly over-the 19 years gotten referred to as an over and under design.
20 And that is how we shorthand refer to that configuration.
I 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What happens to the i 22 non-condensables?
23 3R. EISENHUT. The non-condensables, some 24 remain in the dry well, of course. There is some that 25 goes into the --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
10 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I meant those in the wet 2 well. Do they come up into the dry well?
3 MR. EISENHUT Yes, there is vacuum breakers 4 on the floor. So the pressure equilibrates, of course, 5 and you get the final design pressure is nominally --
6 Roger?
7 I'm sorry, the final design after, say, an 8 accident, where it equilibrates. It is considerably 9 smaller than 15 or 20 psi, something on tha t order. It 10 varies, of course, with the dif ferent accidents.
11 The design pressure of the system is 45 psi.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Gauge?
13 MR. EISENHUT Yes. Because this was the lead 14 Mark II plant in the United States it was extensively 15 reviewed. There was a rather long testing program. We 16 engaged a number of consultants and in fact the 17 information that came out of the Mark I program, which l 18 vent on for a number of years, was, of course, factored 19 into the raview here.
20 Because this was the lead plant there were a 21 number of exceptions criteria where we used conservative 22 load assumptions.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEABNE: The previous withdrawn 24 slides identified NUREG-0487 ss the acceptance criteria.
25 MR. EISENHUT: Those acceptance criteria are t
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
- - _ _ _ _ _ --_-mn__. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _
l 11 1 documented in NUREG-0487 and its supplements.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE. And what is that?
3 MR. EISENHUTs That is a rather detailed 4 document that goes through all of the different 5 calculational techniques and acceptance criteria of what 6 ve would find acceptable on the Nark II containment. It 7 is, let us say, a quite detailed discussion of how to 8 calculate and what the final load criteria are and what 9 assumptions would go into it.
10 Since this is the first U.S. Mark II it will 11 also be performing safety relief valve tests on the 12 T-quenchers. There was an issue that came out, I
- 13 believe it actually came out of the Mark I or its l 14 follow-on work from the late-1970s. SRY discharca load l
15 in the wet well was an issue. There was a concern that 16 was evaluated quite extensively.
17 The design hera uses a T-quencher at the 18 bottom of the SRY discharge line. This plant design is 19 similar to, as I mentioned earlier, the Carauso plant in 20 Italy, which is the lead Mark II -- a similar plant and 21 underwent similar tests. Those tests were confirmatory 22 in nature. This design is similar. LaSalle vill have 23 the same confirmatory tests to confirm a number of the
! 24 assumptions that were made in the evaluation.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What is this?
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
, e 12 l
1 MR. EISENHUT4 Safety relief valves.
2 The containment will be an inerted containment 3 and it will become inerted after commercial operation, 4 which is standard practice for the BWRs.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEA RNE Nitrogen?
8 HR. EISENHUT: Nitrogen, yes.
7 If I could go to the next slide --
8 (Slide.)
9 The fire protection issue is one that we 10 highlighted here I guess more out of consistency with 11 past briefings where fire protection has been a major 12 issue. This plant has been reviewed against the Branch 13 technical position 951 and GDC, which is our standard 14 set of requirements. It was reviewed against those and 15 found to meet all applicable requirements.
16 We did one extra thing here and that is we 17 asked for the utility to do and we reviewed a comparison 18 review against Appendix R. So we made a comparison. We 19 found no important differences. There were two minor 20 differences that we found acceptable from Appendix R.
21 One had to do with the hydrostatic testing frequency and 22 one was the automatic detection systems. These are 23 quite minor.
24 To g1ve you a quick non-significance of the 25 issue, the testing frequency in Appendix R specifies a ALDERSON REPCRTING CCMPANY,INC,
13 1 certain testing frequency, of testing every so many 2 years. The appropriate Code specifies a different 3 testing frequency. They follow the Code as opposed to 4 Appendix R, and we found that acceptable.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s It is just a question of 6 frequency on the hydrostatic tests?
7 5R. EISENHUTs It was strictly a frequency 8 question. The other issue was an area -- a couple of 9 areas of the plant do not have any combustibles in it, 10 and we approved no automatic detection systems in those 11 areas -- a couple of minor limited areas.
12 COMMISSIONER AREARNE: What kinds of areas, 13 just as an example ?
14 HR. EISENHUTa Let us see. Dick Vollmer might 15 vant to amplif y on this.
16 MR. VOLLMER: These were areas containing 17 piping and equipment which had very limited combusting l
18 material intervening, so it was judged by the Staff that l
19 even in the event of a larger design exposure fire that l
20 there would be not enough intervening combustible 21 material to carry the fire from one redundant safety 22 train to another, and on that basis.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Would you just give me 24 an example of a type of an area , wha t loca tion?
25 38. VOLLMER: Well, one of these areas were ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC,
14 4
1 fire areas where, as I recall, they were using pumps or 2 valves which had not the required separation distance of 3 20 feet, but if one assumed an exposure fire that would 4 wipe out one of these with the absence of cables and 5 intervening combustibles we felt there was adequate 6 protection with the space provided to demonstrate 7 reasonable assurance that you would maintain protection 8 of the second system.
9 It is a little type of area. In some cases I 10 do not know what the specific --
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEa No, that is fine.
12 Could I ask another question on the fire, though, 13 protection?
14 I noticed in your list of conditions in your 15 license amendment you have a requirement on af ter the 16 first refueling outage providing fire protection systems 17 in several areas. I have no idea whether this is 18 significant or not other than obviously that there are 19 some areas where you concluded they need fire protection 20 systems which they currently do not. It is 24(b).
21 MR. YOLLMER: You are talking about item (c)?
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: On the one that was --
23 the license amendment that came down to us, I was 24 actually talking about (b). It reads: " Prior to 25 startup after the first refueling outage, the Licensee ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
15 I shall provide fire protections systems in fire areas T. 2(c), 3(c), 4(c)(3) and 6(e)", and I do not know how 3 significant that is.
4 It is obvious that there were some places 5 where the Staff concludes that they are required to have 6 fire protections that they do not now.
7 HR. V3LLMER: I would have to check in the 8 desk here. I can do that while the meeting is going on.
9 HR. DENTON: Let us check and we will answer
( 10 that a little later.
11 HR. EISENHUT: Okay, could I have the next 12 slide?
13 (Slide.)
14 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO: Again, with regard to the 15 hose testing you say it was only frequency. I somehow 16 got the impression that it may not have met other 17 aspects of the tests.
18 HR. YOLLMER: In that the National Fire 19 Protection Code gives testing intervals for the 20 hydrostatic head a t the hoses under active condition of 21 the pumps running and so on of something like the first 22 test has to be -- the first test, original, that once 23 you demonstrate the system's performance then every 24 eight years -- eigh t years is the first interval, then 25 five, and then every two years thereafter.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
16 1 Appendix R requires every three year 2 surveillance testing and we feel that the Code 3 requirements are certainly adequate. I cannot answer 4 the question as to why Appendix R is different than the 5 Code, but thnt is another satter.
6 HR. DENTON: We just wanted to illustrate here 7 that we had gone the extra mile, that Appendix R did not 8 apply to this plant, and we went ahead and had a 9 comparison done and looked at the differences and ther 10 really turn out to be quite minor and we think it is 11 equivalent to Appendix R-type protection when you look 12 at the little details that are different.
13 HR. EISENHUTs All right. 9a this side of me 14 there was actually a pretty minor, narro- issue. It has 15 to do with the physical separation of electrical cables 16 and whether or not they meet our guidance in Regulatory 17 G uide 1.75 concerning the physical separation.
18 The design in some aspects between Class 1E 19 and non-Class 1E do not meet Regulatory Guide 1.75 and 20 because of that we ended up requiring a number of 21 confirmatory tests to confirm the adequacy of the 22 protection and that is put in the license as a license 23 con di tio n .
24 CONNISSIONER AHEARNEs What kind of tests --
25 Sandia-type te sts?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INF,
17 1 HR. EISENHUTs I will have Roger Mattson 2 answer that.
3 MR. MATTSON: The problem was one of 4 separation between the non-1E and the 1E cables and what 5 rou are trying to do is keep a fault that might occur in 6 the non-1E cables from propagating into the 1E cables.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs By how much are they 8 too close?
9 MR. MATTSON: Pardon me? I did not hear you.
to COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs It says up there 11 safety-related cables are too close to unqualified 12 cables.
13 MR. MATISON: The distance requirement in Reg 14 Guide 1.75 is three feet horizontal, five f eet vertical.
15 CONNISSIONER GILINSKYs And what are these?
16 NR. NATTSON: These are one foot vertical, a 17 couple inches horizontal. But they are provided with 18 conduits around the safety-related cable and solid 19 bottom cable trays through which faults should not be 20 able to propagate.
21 Reg Guide 1.75 actually allows alternative 22 ways of protecting safety grade equipment from 23 non-saf ety g rade equipment and the question was one of 24 whether the-Licensee's basis for its alternative ,was 25 sufficient or not, and the Staff judged that the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
10 1 siternative is sufficient but wanted confirmatory tests 2 to prove it. The Licensee has proposed some tests.
3 They will put a fault on a simulated non-1E 4 tray and see whether the fault, which will result in a 5 fire, propagates to the 1E cable.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What is the date of 7 1.75?
8 MR. NATTSON: Old -- mid *70s.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKT Why was it not 10 followed?
11 ER. MATTSON: I do not know the answer to that 12 question.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I mean, was this 14 something that was discussed with the Staff some time 15 ago?
16 MR. BOURHIA: The implementation of this was 17 for cps issued after February 1, 1974.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEa So, Roger, vill they be 19 checking to see where the fire spreads then?
20 HR. MATTSON Yes.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And will the Licensee 22 be doing these tests themselves?
23 MR. MATTSON: It is my understanding they 24 vill, yes.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Had this ever been ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC.
19 1 discussed before with the Staff, or is this something 2 that just came up now? l 3 MR. MATTSON: No, this has been an ongoing 4 discussion.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Given all the 6 difficulty we had with getting Sandia to do decent fire 1
7 tests, I as surprised the Licensee is --
8 MR. MATTSON: The Licensee proposed tests just 9 recently. The tests are still.under review -- in early to June, as a mattar of fact. They configuration looks 11 right. They are picking the most severe instance of the 12 closeness of non-1E to 1E and the question will resolve 13 down around which -- what size fault to put in it and 14 what have you. It is not a question, you understand, of 15 the nearness of train A to train B of two safety grade 18 t ra in s. It is an associated circuits kind of problem.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY What happens if the 18 tests do not come out the way one would like them to?
19 Do you put in barriers or what?
20 HR. MATTSON: You can either put in barriers 21 or separate the cables. You would have to reroute some 22 cable. I think there are a number of areas that have 23 this problem and it is not anybody's expectation that 1
j 24 the tests are going to turn out bad, just that the data l
i 25 was not complete in the Staff's judgment. The licensee l
1 ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
20 l l
1 evidently cited data and the Staff wanted more data.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I do not know how you 3 perform such tests. Do you bring about a fault, cause a 4 fire and then how long do you let the fire burn -- until 5 it burns itself out?
6 MR. MATTSON: Yes , tha t is essentially it.
7 You see if the fire will propagate maintaining the f ault 8 on the system. These kinds of tests have been done 9 before. I think we have talked about them quite a lot 10 in the early days, leading to Appendix R.
11 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes, yes, and many of 12 them done unsuccessfully.
13 MR. NATTSON: But those were largely the 14 exposure fire. Those controversies largely flowed from 15 exposure fires. I think people are fairly comfortable 16 with thase internally-generated electrical fault type 17 fires that they know what they are talking about.
18 3R. EISENHUTa And in order to make sure this 19 issue is resolved we put a license condition in that 20 says that prior to startup af ter the first refueling 21 outage you have either got to demonstrate adequate 22 separation or you have to put in barriers. So it is a 23 license condition.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Which condition is 25 that?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
l 21
. i 1 MR. EISENHUT It is -- well, in the license 2 that was issued it is item 24. I am not sure in the one 3 that we sent down.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Have you passed out 5 the new license?
6 HR. EISENHUT Well, this is the one that was 7 issued April 17. The new license, I believe, was sent 8 downtown in connection with the --
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes, it is the to amendment.
11 NR. EISENHUTs It was an amendment actually.
12 There is only about three paragraphs' change f rom the 13 previous license.
14 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY: Oh, I see here --
15 separation of Class 1E and so on.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Since you raised that, 17 why is that?
18 HR. EISENHUT In the future te intend to 19 issue a very similar amendment amending the previous 20 license, which is normal practice.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I see.
22 3R. EISENHUT -And would only change those 23 three conditions that would have to -- there is no need 24 to delete those items that are complete.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs It did not seem any l
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
! GB V1R$1NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
22 1 need to repeat other than as an exercise for the reader?
2 MR. EISENHUTa We do not intend to do that.
3 MR. VOLLMERs If I could, in response to your 4 question, Commissioner Ahea rne, in Supplement number 2
~
5 of the SER ve do discuss on page 9-2 those two. The 6 fire area is described in Section B of the license as 7 vell as those which we said were satisfactory in Section 8 A.
9 The difference is in Section A there was a 10 very minimal fire loading in the area, so we did accept 11 those. Those fire areas identified in B, there were 12 adequate combustibles in the area ve felt that we would 13 not give allowance for that, and so we vill ask them for 14 fire detection system -- not protection systems, but 15 fire detection systems. There was a misstatement there.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 Oh, it is a detection 17 system.
! 18 MR. VOLLMERs Detection system in those l
19 areas. And as a ma tter of -- I do think the Staff did l
20 not feel that there was an important enough issue to 21 require it that it be done before operation, so it is 22 the first refueling outage.
i 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Now my number 23 says 24 that prior to startup after the first refueling outage 25 the licensee shall provide adequate separation or l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,;NC, l
23 I
1 barriers between Class 1E and adjacent non-Class 1E 2 cable trays.
3 MR. EISENHUT: That is right. These are the 4 two different problems. This item 24 is the one that 5 Roger Mattson addressed. ic is not really a fire 6 protection issue per se. On that issue it is either 7 they will show that they have adequa te sepa ration or --
8 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY: They shall provide 9 adequate separation means shall demonstrate that wha t to they have is adequate.
11 MR. EISENHUT Is adequate or provide that.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa It is not quite the 13 same thing.
14 HR. EISENHUTs Or they may in fact choose to 15 move selected cable in some areas.
16 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE: Okay, in the amendment 17 it is iten 23.
18 HR. EISENHUT We are only off by one number.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEa Did tha t have 20 separation or barriers?
21 MR. EISENHUT Yes, no change in the wording.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The wording is the same.
23 MR. EISENHUT: The wording is the same. We 24 certainly did not intend any change.
25 If I could so to the next slide, please.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
24 1 (Slide.) ,
2 This is the shif t technical advisor function.
3 At LaSalle, the STA vill be a college graduate, will 4 have an SRO and will be part of the operating 5 personnel. In fact, the acronym Station Control Room 6 Engineer, or SCRE, is what has been commonly referred to.
7 The NRC requirement, you will recall --
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEa Can I ask is that 9 Commonwealth Edison system-vide, or is that just LaSalle?
10 ER. EISENHUT: I think at this point it is 11 only LaSalle. However, Commonwealth views it as 12 something, a direction they believe would be better to 13 aim in and I think they are thinking of something like 14 this system-vide.
15 NR. DENTON: It is their proposal in this case 16 and it goes beyond our normal requirements for STA and 17 ve were in f avor of it because it provides another SRO 18 in the control room and he is a member of the crew and l 19 it seems to us that --
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY4 Well, it is more than 21 that. He is in charge.
l 22 MR. DENTON: Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would say it the 24 other way. I would say the man in charge of the control 25 room is a college graduate and happens to satisfy, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,iNC, l
25 I thereby, the STA requirements.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: If you say it too 3 loudly, they may back off.
4 (Laughter.)
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Well, I think it is 6 splendid.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Oh, yes.
8 ER. DENTON: Except he is not actually the man 9 in charge.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKT4 Well, he is in charge 11 of the control room.
12 MR. DENTONa But they do have a shift 13 supervisor who is the SRO and he is not necessarily the 14 same person they call the SCRE.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa They have a shift 16 engineer.
17 MR. DENTON: .The shift engineer is the -- that 18 terminology in the Commonwealth Company is equivalent to 19 supervisor.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa But they call him a 21 shift engineer.
22 MR. EISENHUTa That is why in the parentheses 23 there are -- we tried to put in some words that were a 24 little more descriptive. Our requirement, again, is two 25 SRos plus the STA and the STA had to be a college 1
ALDERECN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
26 1 graduate or equivalent per NUREG-0737.
2 At LaSalle, they have the three SRos, as 3 Harold mentioned. The SCRE is in the control room, in 4 fact, at all times during normal operation. They have a "
5 shift engineer, SHO, who is a supervisor and they have a 8 shif t f oreman --
7 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY: Who is normally 8 outside the control room.
9 HR. EISENHUTa The shift foreman can be 10 outside the control room, and the shift supervisor can 11 be outside the control room. But the person who is 12 normally in the control room at all times is the --
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa But the shif t foreman, 14 if I remember correctly, is someone who looks after the 15 rest of the plant.
18 MR. DENTON: Tends to roam the plant, that is 17 right.
18 MR. EISENHUT: And that is why we put 19 "in-plant" because he can in fact be in the plant and 20 can be in the control room or in the plant, but he is a l 21 qualified, licensed SRO. ,
22 MR. DENTON: I see it as a move toward th e l
23 Peer Panel recommendation of getting a reactor engineer 24 on each shif t. This person does have the SRO. He is 25 degreed. And he is in the control room and he is a part ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 66) N LYf:L fid_ PYXtMKdYiit@L f@ft FMR3 d6fRR
27 1 of the crew.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa I guess I would say 3 that they are moving a good way beyond the Peer Panel 4 and I think tha t is a good thin g .
5 MR. DENTON: One thing we did wrestle with is 6 how he -- how this person performs the STA function when 7 there is an accident.
8 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY I think we ought not 9 to fix on this STA function. That was a kind of bandaid 10 for getting to engineering understanding into the 11 control room. And if you get that in the parson of the 12 ope rating crew, than I think it is even better.
13 HR. DENTON: Well, we flagged -this not because 14 it is a probles. He found it acceptable because it is 15 unique is the rasson we were not --
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Though wasn't it two 17 pieces, though -- to get tha t engineering understanding 18 in the control room b'ut in someone who could at lea *-
19 have a little freedom to be thinking thro'gh u the problem.
t 20 MR. EISENHUT: That is right.
21 MR. DENTON Righ t no w , we vill se ahead here 22 and we vill --
23 MR. EISENHUT: The ne xt thing is, given an 24 accident situation, the SCHE, who is now knowledgeable, s
25 who has been up to speed as to what is going on in the l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,iNC.
n1iRHIKfE'In411L EtM_ MN?@01 F4R K@R3 dRM PPMEm
20 1 plant, is replaced by the shift foreman after an 2 appropriate turnover time, the other experienced SRO 3 comes into the control room, thereby freeing up this 4 SCRE to do just exactly that.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Let's say that was not 6 what the shift engineer told me. He said that he would 7 come in and take over the control room and would look to 8 the SCRE to man the safety panel.
9 MR. DENTON: Well, he works for the supervisor 10 of the shift, who is called the shift engineer, and he 11 would certainly come in and take charge of the control 12 room, it seems to me, at that time.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa All of which I found 14 perfectly reasonable and that seems to be the way ther 15 plan to do it.
16 HR. WALKER: Mr. Gilinsky is correct. The 17 shift engineer will com'e, take command of the control 18 room. The SCRE will step out of line and become an STA 19 as an advisor. The shif t foreman comes back and becomes 20 what has been called the control room SRO, can be 21 relieved to go out in the plant and do whtt is necessary 22 and then STA function is then performed by the SCRE who 23 is then the engineer in charge of the contrei room.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What is the 25 organization? Who works for who?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mm nea aa m m aa m om u m
29 1 HR. WALKER: The shift engineer is in charge, l
2 the man on charge on-site a t all times, sir.
3 CONNISSIONER AHEARNE: The shift engineer?
4 MR. WALKERS Yes, sir.
5 3R. EISENHUT: That is why he is the 6 supervisor.
7 HR. WALKER: But he is not necessarily in the 8 control room.
9 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE Fine. He is now -- the 10 control room and the shif t foreman, are they co-equal or 11 does one work for the other?
12 HR. WALKER: The shift foreman works directly 13 for the shift engineer. The SCRE works for the shif t _
14 engineer and if you had to pick it out they would 15 essentially be co-equal. They are not both college 16 graduates, however.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes, but as far in the 18 organization it is not a strict line that comes down?
19 NR. WALKER: No, sir. Th3t is my
, 20 understanding, sir.
l 21 COMMISSIONER GI7'.NSKY: But I gather the SCRE
, 22 would in f act man the safet y display that they plan to
! 23 have -- not the control room panels but their condensed I
l 24 version of the SPDS, I suppose.
l 25 MR. EISENHUT In that oversight function.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
_vwvwvreasm1m_.smm_nmnrra cavn -
30 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa And concentrating on 2 the safety parameters.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That does sound good.
4 MR. EISENHUT Now another key to this is in 5 fact on tha first line, tha t the STA is part of the 6 operational personnel. Commonwealth considers that a 7 very strong feature, a integral piece of the operational 8 requirements.
9 CONHISSIONER GILINSKYs Well, I think if 10 utilities had this sort of arrangement we would not have 11 come up with the STA concept. It would have been 12 superfluous.
13 MR. DENTON: I think it is an innovative 14 approach. It is their favorite and it meets all of our 15 minimum requirements. I think we are inclined to see 18 how it works and I would imagine Commonwealth might want 17 to move this way in other plants if it is deemed 18 satisfactory. They have a large number of SR0s in order 19 to make this work, as you would guess, with three per 20 shift.
21 MR. EISENHUTa I guess I should point out that 22 five of the six shifts at LaSalle would have this system 23 until December, when the sixth shift would be expected.
24 Ihey would have sufficient staffing to pick up the extra.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Well, that is another ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
- - - - - _ - . - .--e an nnanawa m n e - n - r m e
31 1 important point -- the fact that they are going to have 2 six shifts.
3 3R. EISENHUTs I think that is correct.
4 CONNISSIONER GIIINSKY: Which is very good.
5 MR. EISENHUT: And they are quite well 6 staffed. I believe they expect to get there by the end 7 of the year. On that other shift they would just fall 8 back to our basic requirement and meet our requirements
(
9 on that case with an STA.
10 3ay I have the next slide?
11 ( Slide. )
12 This slide was basically just to highlight 13 that we have a BWR program for low power testing. You 14 will recall that over the last couple of years in the 15 PWR we had an augmented special low power testing 16 program on PWR. One of the keys there was to 17 demonstrata natural circulation, to train the operators, 18 et cetera.
19 We believe the BWR program is comparable to 20 the PWR program except on the BWR there is two important 21 differences. One is, of course, the natural circulation 22 program was already included in their regular testing 23 program. We have required the evaluation of one 1
24 additional low power test and that is a loss of off-site i 25 and on-site AC or a station blackout evaluation.
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
32 1
l 1 It can be performed during, in fact, 2 potentially quite a ways into the first fuel cycle 3 utilizing decay heat. It is a little tentative in that 4 ve have asked the utility to do a safety evaluation, 5 safety assessment, and submit it for our review at least 6 four weeks prior to him conducting the test.
7 CHAIRMAN PAL 1ADINO: Why was this additional 8 test required?
9 NR. EISENHUT: Well, it follows the philosophy 10 ve have used-over the last couple of years of looking at 11 the machine and is there some additional test -- is 12 there an additional test that in fact can provide extra 13 insights into how the machine operates and to provide 14 additional testing training for the shift crews.
15 You will recall on the PWRs I think we 16 originally had something on the order of eight or nine 17 tests. We later moved that down to a lesser number of 18 tests and it is now looking -- we have got proposals 19 before us to allow plants to use simulators to do that 20 additional.
21 3R. DENTON: I think this was of concern to 22 the ACRS at one time, too, as to whether plants had 23 ever -- BWHs had aver actually tested their capability 24 for station blackout.
25 CHAIRMAN PAllADINO: It this the only plant ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
33 1 you are going to test it on?
2 MR. DENTONa It will be the first one.
l 3 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO: The first one. You are 4 going to ask this of every plant?
5 MR. DENTON: Hake it -- I think the answer is 6 probably yes because the design of the power systems are 7 probably sufficiently different in plants that it is 8 worth the test. If the plants were designed identically 9 we might not repeat it.
10 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN0s When will this test be 11 run? Will it be before the power ascension or --
12 HR. EISENHUTs No, it is during the first fuel 13 cycle. The first f uel cycle in this plant, I should 14 point out, runs I think it is 22 effective full power 15 months. So it is a very long first fuel cycle among the 16 BWRS.
17 MR. DENTON: You need sufficient operating 18 time to build in the decay heat in order to do the kind 19 of test. We did not want to run it at initial 20 criticality when you are burdening the operators with 21 trying to main tain the plant critical at some low power 22 while doing the test, but we do want to get the safety 23 evaluation to be cure we understand the possible 24 implications.
25 CHAIBMAN PALLADINO: Will that come toward the i
ALDERSON REPORT NG COMPANY,INC,
_-__---_-_-- tm_ - aa smm ,m -
34 1 end of the fuel cycle?
2 MR. DENTON: I just do not know that we ha ve 3 decided when to -- when to run it. The sooner the 4 better, from our standpoint, but we want to provide 5 ample opportunity. They have to properly plan for it.
6 MR. EISENHUTs If I could have the next slide, 7 this is the overall status of our emergency 8 preparedness. The --
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Could I just take you to back? To what extent are the tests affected by this 11 being the first of the Mark III-BWR-57 12 MR. EISENHUT4 The first of the Mark IIs?
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Mark IIs, yes.
14 MR. EISENHUT. They have in fact have a 15 baseline initial test program that is quite extensive 16 because this is in fact one of the earlier Mark IIs, so 17 there is no -- I do not think it would influence the 18 additional tests we necessarily add, but the base 19 program of low power testing -- or not necessarily lov 20 power testing but testing all the way up to 100 percent 21 has a number of features built into it.
22 MR. DENTON: The schedule shows about ten days 23 of testing between the time they receive permission to 24 go above zero power and when they would complete the 25 test at five percent power. Then perhaps Roger could ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
35 1 describe the total length of projected tests.
2 MR. WALKER I have that in one of my 3 discussions, but, Mr. Gilinsky, a couple of the 4 significant things that would be broader in scope on 5 this plant rather than a previous BWR would be the 6 recirc tests because of the new manual recire flow 7 control system or valve recirc flow control system and 8 the relief valve tests because of the previous 9 discussions on the relief valve flow. It would be much to more extensive.
11 NR. EISENHUTa That reminded me of the second 12 aspect I was going to mention. And that is much of the 13 testing on the BWB machine is accomplished above five 14 . percent power, whereas typically on the PWR a lot is 15 conducted below five percent. As Harold mentioned, 16 there is about ten days' worth of testing to go from 17 =ero to five percent.
18 At that. point, the plant typically is ready to 19 go past the five percent. You really have to get up on 20 the order of 20 to 25 percent power before you have 21 sufficient steam to do a number of the different 22 operations to check out on the machine.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADING: This is a little 24 different from the early impression I had gotten that ,
25 there was not much testing to be done after five percent.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
a
)
36 1 MR. EISENHUT: I think we will ha ve a slide in 2 a little while.
3 MR. DENTON: There is quite a bit of testing.
4 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY: Is that specified by 5 the vendor? Who works out the test program?
6 MR. DENTON: We have a Beg Guide on the types 7 of tests that are required to be performed, but it is 8 essentially laid out by the vendor for each particular 9 plant and then we check it to be sure that it meets 10 the -- that they do the proper moderator coefficients 11 and heat balances and these sorts of things. But 12 basically the program is the vendor's.
13 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE: But these tests are not 14 ones that have to be -- for example, these to and how 15 about the others? Are they ones that have to be done 16 very quickly after passing five percent? Are you trying 17 to have them done very early? The impression I got from 18 Darry1's descrip tion is any time during that first fuel 19 cycle.
20 MR. EISENHUT: Well, there is a mixed bag.
21 The whole testing program,.if I could reserve a little 22 until we get to the program, the one additional test, it 23 is the utility's proposal to do it at the end, coming 24 down at the end of the first fuel cycle. We are still 25 having some discussions. We may well require traps ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
I 37 1 after a year if they have an orderly planned shutdown.
2 But it has to occur during a planned shutdown 3 basically to be ready for it. Secondly, it has to be 4 late enough to have enough decay heat to run the test.
5 So it is well into the first fuel cycle.
6 3R. KEPPLER: Would it be of interest to the 7 Commission to see a graph of the sta rtup test program?
8 HR. WALKER: It is my presentation and I will 9 try to give you as good as I.can.
10 NR. EISENHUT The status of emergency 11 preparedness, this has undergone an evolutionary 12 process. There was a full-scale test exercise back in 13 late 1980. There was some deficiencies that were 14 observed in the Grundy County performance. Since that 15 time there has been some additional exercises held.
16 There was a small-scale exercise on April 15 17 and everything pretty well was resolved and at this 18 point we have been notified f rom FEM A tha t the plan, 19 testing program, everything has turned out acceptable.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: 'Let's seo now. When 21 you have participants in that second bullet there, was 22 Grundy County not a participant in the exercise?
23 3R. B3URMIA: Yes. In the sacond exercise, 24 Grundy County did not participate because they have 25 already been accepted in the September 30 date.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
38 1 3R. EISENHUT: That bullet there is a little 2 misleading.
3 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE: All right, so there 4 were three exercises then.
5 MR. WALKER: To clear it up, Mr. Ahearne, one 6 of those was with Dresden and Dresden has to test Grundy 7 County also and so they tested Grundy County with the 8 Dresden plant.
9 CONHISSIONER AHEARNE: Okay, and because of 10 the Dresden test you can -- the deficiences that were 11 present were ones that were generic to the County, not 12 specific to the plant?
13 HR. WALKER: Yes, sir.
14 MB. EISENHUT Okay, if I can go on to the 15 next slide.
16 (Slide.)
l 17 This slide has been put in for completeness.
18 It is really a rackup of those 737 items that have not 19 been completed on the 737 date, that is, the da te 20 specified in NUREG-0737 for OLs. You will recall that 21 on each of the OLs we have issued there has been a 22 handful of items -- something of the same kind of 23 number -- that have not been completed.
24 I will not go through these one by one in 25 detail, except it is a variety of reasons. The first I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
39 1 ona we already Liantified. There are several where the 2 engineering work is basically complete, where the 3 Licensee or the Licensee is in fact waiting on equipment 4 to go ahead and complete the item.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Does that indicate a 6 shortage of qualified equipment?
7 MR. EISENHUT I think tha t is correct -- the 8 unavailability of it, yes.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And --
10 MR. EISENHUTs That typically historically has 11 been the situation. Many of the operating reactors have 12 told us that they are unable to put items in plants --
13 that is, a number of the 737 items -- because they do 14 not have the qualified equipment covering the ranges of 15 equipment, for example, and the capabilities required.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s And when are they going 17 to get that equipment? When would it be installed?
18 MR. EISENHUTa On the following -- on the 19 items toward the end of the page it will be prior to 20 s tar tup af ter the first refueling outage and it is 21 really not later than that. We -- in discussions with 22 the utility they are very close on a number of those l
23 items. The enoineering is completed on all of the 24 items. It is a matter of waiting on some pieces. So 25 they will be putting them in sometime during the first ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
_ _ CRVIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
40 1 cycle.
2 CH AIBHAN P ALlADINO: Are we going to impose a 3 problem on all the utilities as more plants come on line?
4 HR. EISENHUTa I think we have.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I guess what I am asking 6 is will we get a logjam because of it, or do you think 7 the equipment manufacturers will be able to catch up?
8 MR. EISENHUTa Well, I think we are over the 9 hurdle, as a matter of fact. Remember, we put these 10 requirements on all the operating reactors in the United 11 States. It is a one-shot. Most of the orders were 12 placed. A number of the equipment manufacturers are in 13 f ac t -- seem to be coming along pretty well.
14 I do not think it is a matter of as we issue 15 OLs I do not think that will really have a 16 perturbation. Someone may disagree.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Can I ask a question 18 about the two different interpretations of the two sets l 19 of charts so that I can understand what the status is?
20 In one set.of charts the sta:ement was the 21 unavailability of equipment and nos it is the equipment 22 qualification is in progress. Now does tha t mean that 23 they have identified the equipment and the equipment is 24 now somewhere being qualified?
25 MR. EISENHUT: No . I think you cannot read i I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l f
L FMYlCPEM /X13,,J'1EllCfGIMS@N_ RBL KGFt3 WM ppo-fSm
41 1 too much in te that. It really was -- this is a more 2 securate characterization of the real facts. The 3 equipment is -- the equipment qualification is still 4 being d e velo ped . Some pieces of it are being tested.
5 Others are still just waiting on order.
6 MR. DENTON: I understand in some cases they 7 actually have equipment and the equipment may be even 8 installed, but it has not been -- the qualification 9 tests are lagging and a paper to qualify it is not to there, which was the 1.B.3, for example.
11 5H. EISENHUT You will notice the second line 12 iten is --
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes, I know. I was 14 really focused on the last three because in the earlier 15 page it just described it as the equipment was not 16 available and I wondered whether this was the situation.
17 HR. EISENHUT It is really qualified 18 equipment is not a vailable. If you need a valve l
19 position indicator --
20 COMMISSIONER AHEABNE: True, true, but what we 21 had found at some earlier time was that there was just 22 no qualified equipment in existence and I wondered 23 whether your new version meant that they have identified 24 the equipment that they hope to qualify and it is now in 25 the process of being qualified. But they have not ALDERSCN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC,
42 1 gotten that far.
2 MR. EISENHUT: Some is. Some is being 3 qualified.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Mixed.
5 MR. EISENHUTs There are two other items. The 6 first iten is the item we talked about on the testing 7 program, and then there is a ites which -- inadequate 8 core cooling -- detection for inadequate core cooling 9 which, of course, we will talk on separately.
10 If I could have the next slide.
11 12 13 14 15 3 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1
24 25 l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
43 1 MR. EISENHUT. This plant, as Harold 2 m en tioned , was one of the first plants where we required 3 an additional, augmented verification, additional 4 confidence in the design QA. I should say, to put this 5 in perspective, we had considerable discussions with 6 senior management both in NRC and the utility and a 7 review of their overall Q A capabilities, how well 8 they've done in the past, their performance. And we 9 have quite a bit of confidence in this utility and its 10 overall ability to have a well-engineered, designed and 11 built plant.
12 We felt, however, that we would require one i 13 additional piece of additional confidence, additional 14 verification, and we required an independent design 15 review of one piece of the RHR system. It is in fact 16 one piece of pipe; run through a rather detailed check 17 on that one piece of pipe.
18 COMMISSIONER AHE ARNE: And that was?
19 MR. EISENHUT: That was the RCSI RHR system.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But was that a 21 specifically chosen item or just a random --
22 MR. EISENHUT It was chosen by the staff 23 somewhat randomly. We had to select one and we 24 specifically identified the load that it had to be 25 avaluated under and we identified the piece of the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, MTLNEFEE OMLFLDm.0$MIMf0M'k f@R KNAS #FM1 FPWRYa
44 1 system. We did not leave that to the utility. There 2 was some rationale for this piece.
3 MR. DENTON: I was involved in picking that 4 one. We did ask the probabilistic group for what 5 systems would be most valuable to check in a BWR, and 6 they came back with a list. And then we talked to the 7 engineers about which areas should you check.
8 This pipe goes all the way from the torus, 9 runs through a lot of rooms, and has a lot of pumps and 10 valves associated with it, and then it finally goes back 11 in the reactor system, and it was one that was designed 12 late in the game, after the hydrodynamic loads question 13 had come up in the Mark II and there had been a big 14 eff ort to redesign the supports for this pipe.
1 15 So we considered it was a good candidate both 16 from the saf ety significance of it and the fact that it 17 was a late design, subject to these hydrodynamic loads, 1
18 a nd was in an area somewhat' analogous perhaps to seismic 19 design in PGCE, where there was susceptibility for 20 errors. And so it was picked on both those bases.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY4 What did the reviewers 22 actually do? What did Teledyne do? Did it check all 23 the calcula tions? Did it then sample this system or 24 this piece of pipe? How many man-months or man-years of 25 effort were involved? What did it cost?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, @.W, Wl@HINST@No @ @. 2ME4 (Si$ G93-8009
45 1 MR. EISENHUT: A little above $400,000.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So it's like four 3 man-years.
4 MR. EISENHUT: Cordell Williams of the 5 region.
6 ER. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, and may I have 7 the question again, please.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa What did Teledyne 9 actually do?
10 MR. WILLIAHS: In the area of the piping 11 seismic support design, Teledyne reviewed Commonwealth 12 Edison's design control program, the records associated 13 with their implementation of that program in designing 14 the seismic supports. They reviewed the specific 15 calculations for a number of the supports and seven 16 subsystems. And they reduced that to the identification i 17 of several errors, 20 errors, 31 open items.
18 They subsequently reported tha t back to the 19 Licensee. The Licensee had evaluated those items and 20 issues to see if in f act they were symptoma tic of a l 21 larger problem within their overall design control l
l 22 system. The resolution there indicated that they were 23 minor or they amounted to documentation corrective 24 actions, and the issues were essentially closed on that 25 note.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, MM l
46 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are these errors in '
2 calculations or errors in the way papers were handled?
3 MR. WILLI AMS : Errors primarily in the way 4 papers were handled.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Now, were calculations 6 actually repea ted, or did they just scan them?
7 MR. WILLIAMS: Calculations were actually 8 reevaluated and repeated. -
9 Region III likewise reviewed a number of the 10 calculations in some fairly narrow areas to assure 11 themselves that in f act the review itself had been 12 comprehensive in that area.
13 C05MISSIONER GILINSKY: Thank you.
14 MB. WILLIAMS: Sure.
15 My summary at this point will not extend the 16 bottom line that we have there, the staff's findings.
17 And that's simply that the design verification program 18 as provided by Teledyne, TES, provides for NRR and NRC 19 some additional measure of assurance that the basic 20 design control program as implemented by SEL was in fact 21 a reliable one.
22 Now, within that program, as we identify in 23 the third item there, there were a number of deviations 24 and errors that were identified, and to some extent we 25 will be pursuing those in other areas. But none of them s
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
. 47 i
~
1 1 amount to any set of circumstances that would undermine 2 our f undamental confidence in their program .
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Cordell, is this the 4 same group that is doing Diablo Canyon?
l 5 MR. WILLIAMS: I believe so, but I'm not '
6 sure. Perhaps, Eisenhut, can you answer that?
7 MR. EISENHUT: It's the same organization. I 8 think the people are probably different.
9 If I could go to the slide on differences 10 between the April 17th license and amendment one.
11 (Slide.)
12 I have one other slide and then we will go to 13 a number of the region items.
14 I don't think -- this may not be in the 15 handout package and if it isn't we can provide it. It 16 is meant to be sim ply to point out that the license that 17 was issued on April 17th is basically the same license 18 that we're proposing for full power, with three 19 changes. Obviously, one is the increased power level.
20 That is item C-1.
21 Item F, which I'll skip for a moment and come 22 back to, is purely a legalism. Item H is the 40-year 23 license. And Ed Christenbury can help me with this 24 one. The utility requested a 40-year license on this 25 pla n t . At the time we issued the low power license, it ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, cE0 WEINIA ATL fiWe WThlN8 TON. D.C. 20024 6202) 554-2345
. 4D 1 stated that this is a 40-year license subject to the 2 outcome of the pending rulemaking.
3 Ihe rulemaking has basically gone by the 4 wayside, so we have now gone back and looked at --
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What rulemaking is 6 this?
7 MR. CHRISTENBURY: This was a rulemaking by 8 Council for Energy Independence. It filed a rulemaking, 9 a request or petition for rulemaking to modify our 10 Section 50.51 of our regulations. As you recall, that 11 provides that all licenses will be issued for an express 12 period of time not to exceed 40 years.
13 Now, traditionally we have run that 40 years 14 from the time of the issuance of the construction 15 permit. And it's not clear in our looking back on it 16 historically how tha t practice developed. It might have 17 been simply because there was not that auch time in the 18 early stages that elapsed between construction and the 19 issuance of th e OL .
l 20 But in any event, there wasn't -- there is not l
21 a traceable basis for the practice, but that has been l
22 the practice we have traditionally followed in the 23 beginning. What the petition for rulemaking requested, 24 and indeed what Commonwealth Edison requested when they 25 wrote their letter, was that the time of the 40 years ALDERSoN REPoRTIN3 COMPANY. INC.
6.
. 49 1 commence with the issuance of the OL, as opposed to the 2 issuance of the CP.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Is there any policy or 4 any point that prevents tha t?
5 MR. CHRISTENBURY: I think not.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Why don 't you answer 7 the question.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Another part to th at:
9 Has everything been analyzed for 40 years?
10 MR. DENTON It will in this case, yes. That 11 was the question we asked ourselves, is the plant 12 designed f or 40, and wha t about the environmental 13 impacts for 40. So we assured ourselves that the safety 14 and environmental aspects are covered for the 40 years 15 after the OL.
16 And we had thought originally the Commission 17 might be acting on this rulemaking before we got to this 18 point, and then I understand that the reason the 19 rulemaking isn't here, it was concluded tha t you had th e j 20 authority without needing to make the rule. -
21 MR. CHRISTENBURI: But to get back to your
- 22 earlier question, the remaining part of 50.51 says that l
23 where the operation of a f acility is involved the l
l 24 Commission vill issue the license for the term requested 25 by the a pplicant or for the estimated useful life of the i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, l
. esp VIRGINIA AVE y @.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
- 50 1 facility if the Commission determines that the estimated 2 useful life is less than the term requested.
3 So we felt that here, where we had an express 4 request from Commonwealth Edison to run the 40 years 5 -from issuance of the OL, that was, under our 1 6 regulations, that was appropriate to do unless there was 7 either a saf ety or an environmental consideration which 8 would suggest otherwise.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY I wonder if the se 10 terms mean anything', anyway. If these plants are 11 running well, they will con tinue to run if they can run 12 safely. And if 'they cannot continue to run reliably and 13 safely, they will not run. I do not think these numbers 14 we put into the licenses mean anything when you are 15 talking about 40 years.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINOs It means one thing. If 17 the plant runs well, at 30 years they do not have to 18 start another proceeding to keep them going for a while 19 longer.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY I suspect all of this 21 is going to look so different 30 years from now that 22 whatever we do here is just irrelevant.
j 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Does it have anything 24 to do with the depreciation tha t they can take in their
. 25 rates?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
. 51 1 dR. CHRISTENBURY: I'm not sure. The reasons 2 were not expressed.
3 MR. EISENHUT: I think in fact I have heard 4 that from at least one utility, that it does make a 5 difference whether it is a 40-year or 30-year. I think 6 in fact you can expect a number of utilities have now 7 come forth, the upcoming OL's, and in fact almost, I 8 think, every one has expressed interest in going to a 9 40-year licsnae rather than a 30-year license.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So they run their 11 calculations out that far, instead of running it for 30 12 years, you know, the return on investment and all that.
13 MR. DENTON: I had not taken that fact into 14 account. I did it just on the basis of the safety and 15 environmental impacts were acceptable for 40 and ther 16 had asked for it. But this is an uncontested case and 17 the applicant's he re. Perhaps you wanted to ask him how 18 it might apply in his case.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY We ll, I would 20 certainly be interested if there is someone who can 21 enlighten us. I think Mr. Lee is here from Commonwealth 22 Edison. I don't want to force him into commenting, but 23 if he 'd like to comment I'd certainly like to hear it.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you want to raise a 25 specific question?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, c!3 W@lI30 NL 9%L EN, @& EE183 GB 023-2E9 l
. 52 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY What is the 2 significance of a 40-year or a 30-year?
3 MR. LEES I think one of the reasons -- the 4 primary reason was mentioned. We do have hope that it 5 will operate, and optimistic that it'll operate for 40 6 years.
7 I migh t say that I'm Byron Lee, Executive Vice 8 President of Commonwealth Edison Company.
9 I think, secondly, it has some benefit to us 10 f rom a financial standpoint that we have a license for 11 the 40-year term. We think there are other benefits.
12 The benefits of the nuclear operation obviously will 13 continue on in the future.
14 I would have to agree with you that if they're 15 running well at the end of 30 years, I'm sure that --
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Or 40, for that 17 matter.
18 MR. LEE: That's right. We would be back.
19 But 40 years has been our standard. It has kind of been 20 our standard life in planning for most of our equipment, 21 and we see no reason to treat the nuclear units any j
22 differently.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thank you. .
25 MR. EISENHUT The last item on here is Item ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
53 1 F. There's a slight change on here since the last I saw 2 it. Item F is in the license that was issued we had a 3 requirement that the Licensee shall notify the 4 Commission as soon as possible, but not later than one 5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> after any accident. And that was flowing from the 6 pending rule that was going forth.
7 MR. CHRISTENBURYa That wa s a provision that 8 Congress put on, and it was Section 102 of the 1980 9 Appropriations Act. So tha t's a provision that's 10 required by statute.
11 Now, there is a rulemaking in progress now 12 which shot 21d be effective in the not too distant future 13 which would incorporate that by rule. But right nov 14 there is a provision in the statute which requires the 15 language that we Darrell described.
16 HR. EISENHUTa Now, going from the amendment 17 that was issued in April 17th to amendment one, that 18 item got deleted. It should not have been deleted. It 19 should remain. And in fact a new item was added in its 20 place. Well, the new item is also necessary, and that j 21 is the one tha t states that the licensee shall report i
22 any violation from the conditions of the license within 23 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
24 B,oth of those requirements are in fact needed 25 and will be in the final license. Inadvertently, one ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, I
54 1 got replaced with the other. Again, it's a minor 2 revision. When we put together the final amendment over 3 the next week or two, we expect it will be a simple 4 amendment highlighting just those things that have 5 changed, so that it makes it very simple, makes very 6 clear what actually changed from the license to the 7 amendment.
8 There's another list of items that were 9 deleted, and they of course need not be deleted. Those 10 were items that had been already completed. They 11 certainly can remain, and in fact there's some merit to 12 leaving them so that you can see what in fact was done.
13 We have a couple of_other items to go through 14 and I'm going to turn it over to the region --
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask you 16 something more about the license. Item 6 is entitled 17 " Deferred Preoperational Deficiencies." I wonder if you 18 could tell se something about that. It says the 19 Licensee shall satisfactorily resolve those deficiencies 20 which were~ deferred from the preoperational testing 21 program on a schedule which shall sssure the capability 22 of the system required to be operable by technical 23 specifications is not degraded.
24 MR. EISENHUT. Why don't I leave that in 25 the --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
,400 VIRGINIA AML @,W.9 WCCfilN$T@N, 9.$. M4 (@3) MM.
, +
o 95 1 MR. WALKER: (Inaudible). ~
2 CORMISSIONER GILINEKY: Okay.
3 MR EISENHUTs That is one cf the items that 4 ve addressed 7 We have prepareed one oth'er ' thing and 5 that is we have sort of --
6 ColMISSIONER AHEARNEi On the' license, can I 7 ask a couple questions on license?
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I have a. couple, tod.
s 9 But go ahead.
to You weren't quite finished? ,
11 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKY a . l wasn 't finished 12 either. -
13 (Laughter.)
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Go ahead. ,
15 COMMISSIONER GIgINSKYa Nueber 9' is in-service
~
18 testing of pumps and valves, relief gra'ated from testing 17 requirements and so on. Why is the relief necessary?
18 MR. VOLLMER: I think in this case the 19 in-service testing program isinot required gener511y 20 until the first refueling octage, and we haven 't raally s 21 come to agreement on those ' things that need\to he' 22 tested. The regulatorycquidance is fairly clear on
~
23 these, but the staff judgment has to be' based on 24 acce ssibility of aquipment, ALAB A co'asidera tions, and' .,
25 things of that nature./
[ ,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, MVIR$NIA AS Q,W, WTH0TDTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554- @
. 56 '
1 So we're granting extension until we are able 2 to completa our review of the program. In no case does 3 this granting of a postponemen t -- it won't really 4 change anything, because the equipment won't be coming 5 up for in-service testing until after we've done our 6 review anyway.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY And on item 11, 8 environmental qualifications, it says that no later than 9 June 30th, 1982, and so on, Licensee shall be in to compliance with NUREG-0588.
11 MR. EISENHUTs Tha t is the standard language 12 in all plants in the United States.
13 HR. VOLLMER: Until something is done 14 generically on that, all of them read the same way.
15 MR. EISENHUTa That's the same condition 18 that's on all the operating plants by order.
17 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: John, go ahead.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: ' Reading off of the 20 supplement, could you explain number 67 Is there 21 anything significant there? The Licensee shall supply 22 the forces required to complete the tables. Have they 23 not done that, or are you j us t --
24 MR. BOURMIA: We have them from the applicant 25 and the tech specs have been upgraded to reflect ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., W ASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
57 I
1 these.
l 2 By the way, this will be amendment number 3 two. Amendment number one to the license has some 4 amendments to the tech specs and we inadvertently -- we 5 inadvertently made this amendment number one and it 6 should be numbec two.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs But you're saying that 8 as far as -- the Licensee has supplied those?
9 MR. BOURNIA The Licensee has supplied this 10 information.
11 COMMISSIONER AREARNE Then I guess, unlike 12 the items that Darrell had earlier mentioned that were 13 in a license and need not be deleted because they have 14 been done, I'm not sure why you would put into a license 15 that you're about to issue something that has already 16 been done.
17 MR. BOURMIA: At'the time when we were going 18 ahead with issuing the package to you, we didn't have 19 the information.
20 MR. EISENHUTs Yes, I should point out, as we 21 said, that we intend to upgrade it to just a simple 22 amendment on what needs to be changed.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: On your masonry wa ll, 24 which is number 7, this I guess is more a question, you 25 are still referring to the staff's interim criteria, and ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
___ 400 VIRGlNIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
58 1 I wondered what is the status of developing some NEC 2 final criteria.
l 3 MR. YOLLMERs Well, I guess the interim 4 criteria are perhaps the final criteria now in a sense.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs By default.
6 MR. VOLLMER4 By default, yes. They are 7 effectively what we have in the standard review plan, 8 and these criteria as applied, for example, at LaSalle 1 9 -- they did review their masonry walls in conformance to with what ther thought were adequate sizing criteria and 11 actually did an investigation of a number of walls to 12 see that they had the rebar and the grouting located as 13 they were supposed to be, and answered affirmative.
14 And what we really are doing now is wrapping 15 up is wrapping up a few loose ends to see if we agree 16 that the criteria that they have used are sufficiently 17 conserva tive or in conformance with our criteria. If 18 that is not the case, then we'll have to go back to the 19 Licensee and he'll have to propose changes.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEAhNE: But do we intend to at 21 some point publish something that would be our criteria ,
22 or is it the f act that it's in the standard review plan, 23 is that the last step? So would it no longer be called 24 interim criteria and just merely be -- would this more 25 :orrectly be ph ra se d as saying the staff criteria and
/1CERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
59 1 the criteria used by the Licensee?
2 MR. YOLLMER: I think that would be better. I 3 did not focus on the word " staff interim criteria." Let 4 se go back and take a look at that.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Just going back to the 6 Sales discussion, the implication I got from this was we 7 vere still thinking through what ought to be our 8 c ri te ria .
9 HR. VOLLMER: Well, at the Sales time the 10 problem was that the staff had come up with the criteria 11 and was trying to g e t people to comment, industry to 12 comment on it. And I guess from the lack of comments 13 that we 've received in f act most of them seem to feel 14 that they were an adequate set of criteria, and we 15 probably should have taken steps to wipe out the word 16 "in te rim . "
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs On page 5, number 11, 18 could you explain the significance of the iten B?
19 HR. BOURMIA: We're having some difficulties 20 in coming to agreement with what has been submitted by 21 the vendor. This is a generic problem, by the way. And 22 the vendor will be submitting something to us by July 23 30th, 1982, for our review. And we're saying, prior to 24 going to first refueling outage the Licensee must 25 incorporate our results of this review.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
60 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is this a Mark II BWR-S 2 unique issue? When you say it's generic, is it General 3 Electric acrosc the board for all?
4 MR. EISENHUTa I think it's generic across the 5 board. I think with the BWR's I do not think we have 6 resolved it to the extent, with these blowdown loads, 7 concerning the fuel assembly liftoff. I don't really --
8 I think it's an issue across the board.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is it at the stage 10 where you're quite concerned about it, or --
11 MR. EISENHUT Well, to put that in 12 perspective, Roger, would you like to characterize the 13 level of concern?
14 MR. MATTSON: Well, it's a nagging thing we've 15 been working on for some years, the combination of LOCA 16 loads and seismic loads. And asymmetric loads, A-2 is 17 probably the thing that's keeping it moving at the time 18 right now isn't it, Vic? The liftoff loads is nov 19 active under A-2. So it's under an unresolved safety 20 issue.
21 MR. EISENHUTa It has been going on for at 22 least about four years, and it has gone through a number i 23 of different technical groups to try to resolve this.
l 24 And as Roger says, it's a nagging issue. We do not l 25 think it's a major safety issue, but it is one that has l
l ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
[
, e 61 1 remained unresolved for a long period of time.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs I guess then I'm 3 puzzled by your time schedule you have on this. If it I
4 is a long-term issue that has been around a long time, 5 are you saying tha t every BWR license will have prior to 6 startup after the first refueling outage, this issue 7 must be satisfactorily resolved?
8 MR. EISENHUTa Well, I think the more 9 important key here is that the Licensee shall submit a 10 complete description of the methods on how to resolve 11 it. And then you give them time to fix it in the 12 plant.
13 COMNISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, if that's a month 14 from now?
15 MR. MATTSON: Maybe it helps to read the SER, 16 which we have been doing while the talking has been 17 going on. Page 4-6.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You realize the SER was 19 not sent down.
t 20 NR. MATTSON: Ma rch '81, the old one.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The old one, not the 22 SSER.
23 MR. MATTSON: Yes. What it describes here is 24 some generic work done by General Electric, that the 2L staff had a consultant look at it, it looked like it was I
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
_ 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345_ .__
62 1 all right, but there were some confirmatory things that 2 were supposed to be done. And the expectation is, if 3 you read the words here, that there's not a big problem 4 on the BWR-4 and 5 fuel and tha t that will be proven 5 shortly.
6 And I think that's why the one year. Not so 7 such that it's urgent to get it done, but that it is 8 expected to be accomplished without much effort.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Let's see. On page 6, 10 number 15, you are asking the Licensee to submit its 11 confirmatory assessment of the design adequacy. What do 12 you mean by that?
13 HR. BOURHIA: As Darrell indicated, LaSalle 14 was reviewed under the lead plant program, which gave 15 conservative loads. In addition, the vendor was doing a 16 second phase, what they call a long-term phase. And we 17 have completed that review and we want the Licensee now 18 to go back and look at his design and assure himself 19 that these were conservative loads that they were using 20 in terms of the long-term program that we now have 21 com ple ted .
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Okay. So you're asking 23 his to essentially redo his analysis based on --
24 HR. BOURHIA: The new loads now that have been 25 p re sc rib ed .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
63 i
l 1 CO MMISSION ER AHEARNE: Can you send down the 2 supplement to the SER?
3 3R. EISENHUT: Certainly. There was an SER 4 and there are to be supplements. We a re righ t now S preparing the final supplement, which we expect to be 6 completed some time in the near f uture.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And you have on page 11 8 mentioned, under 29.B, the Licensee correcting the 9 design deficiencies identified in the supplement on the to schedule prescribed therein. I was unable to translate 11 that into knowing whether there were significant design 12 deficiencies, sinor.
13 HR. BOURHIAs Essentially, I think we had some 14 deficiencies that were supposed to be done prior to fuel 16 load and some deficiencies that were supposed to be done 16 prior to full power. I am pretty certain that all of 17 the deficiencies that are required to be resolved have 18 been resolved, and I do not think this would be part --
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The last question. I 20 noticed that you repeated in here what was in the 21 original license , the upgrading of emergency support 22 facilities and the set-of dates by which the effort was 23 going to be done. And I wondered as to some more 24 general characteristics. A re you establishing the dates 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 6 MM
6u I
1 for the emergency response f acilities in the licenses? '
2 MR. EISENHUT This is the -- we are just 3 following through the same approach that we have in the 4 past of specifying three d ates, recognizing that we have 5 under development the other system of trying, for 6 operating plants, to specify the dates.
7 On each of these I've asked the utility, 8 though, can you really -- are you really expecting to 9 meet these dates? And if they give me new dates or if 10 they specify they can, we would go on those kinds of 11 dates.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE4 So then I would read 13 this as Commonwealth Edison saying that they can meet 14 the SPDS by October 1st?
15 MR. EISENHUT Sort of, but I doubt it. I 16 sean, you know, you've got to look a t these thinge with 17 -- it of course depends on what the SPDS looks like.
18 The PSDS is not defined at this time as to what we feel 19 the requirement is.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But it does say the 21 Licensee shall complete his emergency response 22 f acilities as follows: the safety parameter display 23 system, October 1st, 1982. I thought that's what that 24 meant.
25 MR. EISENHUT. That is correct, as proposed by ALT ERSON REPCRDNG COMPANY iNC.
400 VIRGINIA A'/E, S.W, WASHINGTsN. D.@._8Bi@3 $8B @S-fEXE
~
65 1 basically this time --
let me say, there's a lot of 2 variation that is out there today.
3 COMEISSIONER GILINSKY: What are you going to 4 do on October the 1st?
5 3R. EISENHUT On October the 1st, if it's not 6 installed we'll have to amend the license. And if, for 7 example, we should decide that an SPDS, you know, has 8 deep panels and works on seismic redundant equipment, 9 then at that time we would have to renegotiate or 10 reissue.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It depends on whether it 12 goes to --
13- COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Well, what 's the point 14 of putting a date in?
15 HR. EISENHUTs Well, we're trying to stick to 16 the existing required dates that have been issued in 17 connection with 0737. We have to have some kind of 18 stabilty when we're going through the process, 19 recognizing tha t these were put in the evaluation 20 perhaps a year ago and we've been working along to this 21 set of requirements. And until they are officially 22 changed, the approach we've been taking is sticking with 23 those requirements that have been issued on this.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I can understand 25 that. The trouble is that some of these dates are ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, MC MIIMID mit EWIL MtMT@C1 DR. FFE4 cRM GPL 2345
66 1 really serious dates, and others are less serious. And 2 when we mix them up together it leads to a certain lack 3 of respect for dates in general.
4 MR. EISENHUT: That's why the only dates we're 5 issuing are those that have been formulated by policy 6 decisions.
7 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY: You're blaming it on 8 us.
9 (Laughter.)
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Have these dates been set 11 by policy decision?
12 -
MR. EISENHUTa Yes, they were in the 737 13 package, which there was a policy statement that they're 14 necessary and sufficient.
15 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO: You did it before I got 16 here.
17 HR. EISENHUTs And I recognize, of course, 18 that we have -- and I participated in the development of 19 82111, and I think it's something that we need to 20 develop a good formulation of and negotiate a 21 plant-specific schedule on each plant that is realistic 22 and reasonable.
23 But at the same time --
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What bothered me to put 25 these dates in the re is I don 't think they're going to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i 67 I
1 have the maaning that they ought to.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, that is 3 something we can sort out.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Last question. On the 5 license, I notice that there are, at least in the 6 version that we have at the moment, there are a number 7 of items that are to be completed af ter the first or by 8 the first refueling outage, or after startup after the 9 first refueling ou ta ge .
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: A very la rge number of 11 items.
12 CONNISSIONER AHEARNE: And given -- I have the 13 same reaction. There seem to be a very large number of 14 them. Has NRB looked at in an integrated f ashion, 15 although any one individual item may not be very 16 significant, when you put them all together?
17 HR. EISENHUTs Not to the best of my 18 knowledge.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Of course, that is a 20 very long time from now. We're talking about 22 21 months.
22 HR. EISENHUT: I believe it's about a 22-month 23 period.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: In which case it's an 25 even longer.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
68 1 MR. EISENHUT: It 's even longer, is my point.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY We ' re talking about 3 well over two years.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: My question wasn't can 5 it be done in that time. It was more a question, with 6 all of those items remaining to be done, have you looked 7 at whether there is a -- are any of the other findings 8 that you've made, for example, incompatible with say th e 9 overall judgment you've reached?
10 ER. EISENHUTa I don't think it affects our 11 overall judgment. If you're going to put it --
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Let me understand the 13 question. Are you saying that, with so many items left 14 over, is it okay to proceed with the plant running?
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is that the judgment 16 tha t they have reached.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: 'I did not understand 18 the question. That's a good question.
19 (Laughter.)
20 MR. DENTON: Well, there are some that we 21 think that our judgment is that they need to be 22 completed before going above five percent, for example, 23 and they'ra the ones that we include as being comple ted 24 in the low power. I think as we've gotten smarter and 25 looked into more detail, you find more things that we 're ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, 013 Uli@0G3D QML @.0, CCOMR@T@RL @.@. 8M83 SSB OM 8929
~
69 1 putting into licenses these days that weren't in there 2 before, and we 're just trying to properly account for 3 them now.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I understand tha t. It 5 was more a sense that I was wondering, as the reviewers 6 go through the current plant as it's getting ready to be 7 opera ted , they have got one reviewer, or one branch will 8 have a problem which has to be resolved by a certain 9 time, another branch will have a similar, another branch 10 vill have some more. As long as there's only a few, I 11 can see it being able to be just subjectively viewed and 12 reach a conclusion, yes, there's no problem.
13 If there are a large number, even though every 14 individual one may still be relatively minor, I was 15 questioning whether that didn't require you at another 16 level to just look at the whole collection of them, to 17 reach a judgment as to whether perhaps there are too 18 many still left over. And I didn't know whether that 19 was done.
20 MR. MATTSON: Darrell, maybe I could add 21 something here.
22 This is a question that came up a year ago 23 after the Sequoyah license and some other of the 24 licenses right af ter Three Mile Island began to flow.
25 And we were putting a lot more things in as license ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, GE8 VXEl@MBA AWM., @.W., WC@302T@93, 9.@. 89580 (8@23 @@3-1249
, o 70 1 conditions, at the urging of the Commission, that we 2 used to just sort of take gentlemen's agreement we'd.get 3 information later. We started putting those other 4 things, like this fuel liftoff thing -- prior to TMI 5 that probably would not have been a license condition.
I 6 Af ter Sequoyah 's license and a couple of the l 7 others were issual and there was a long laundry list of 8 things to be.done, the question of was there an 9 integrated effect, given there wasn ' t a piecemeal 10 effect, was there an integrated effect. We did some 11 work inside of DSI to take a look at not only ours, but 12 some of Dick's and the other requirements that have been 13 lef t outstanding, and tried to put them in various 14 ca tegories, whether they were confirmatory items, that 15 is there was a safety basis or a technical basis for the 16 safety decision now, albeit other information was coming 17 in later, was there some interim requirement that had 18 been placed on the licensee because the final technical 19 answer hadn 't come in, like in fire protection. If 20 there was a system modification to be made by the first 21 refueling, was there a special watch in that area before 22 the system modification was made.
23 We took that integrated look at Sequoyah and I 24 believe one other. I can 't come up with the name of it 25 off the top of my head. And the answer was clearly ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~
71 1 the re was no integra ted eff ect.
2 We could volunteer to do snother one on this 3 one if you want. But the list of items is much smaller 4 here, I believe you'll find, than what you were seeing 5 at the time of Sequoyah when we were still catching up.
6 MR. EISENHUT4 Yes. There is one other 7 consideration, too. A lot of these where it says prior 8 to startup after the first outage, a number of those d items of course will be done far before the first to refueling outage. And in fact I believe that if we felt
! 11 the utility was now taking this license, using it as a 12 speed limit and deferring all of these deliberately to 13 the first outage, I think that would cause us concern 14 and we would interject ourselves at that point.
- 15. So it is something that we continue to follow 16 after the license is issued.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are you through?
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I have two questions and 20 they're related. Must the staff make some formal 21 finding associated with these allegations we're going to i 22 discuss prior to allowing the plant to proceed above l
l 23 zero power? Do we have to make a specific finding?
24 MR. DENTON: Yes. And when I answered the i 25 original petition from the Attorney General of the l
t I
l
{ ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 L _
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
72 1 S ta te, I made the commitment in there that I would --
2 that I would review the results of our investigation 3 into these allegations before permitting o p er atio n .
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO You would obviously 5 .pprove them.
6 MR. DENTON: That' is right. And I also made a i .
7 commitment to meet with him or his representatives 8 before we made the decision. And I think thera is a 9 meeting scheduled in Chicago later this week with the 10 Attorney General's representatives.
11 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN0s Are you going to wait for 12 the report before you meet with them?
13 HR. DENTON: No.
14 Well, Jim, maybe you'd like to discuss the 15 meeting.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We're going to get into 17 that.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY I have one question 19 about the Licensee. Are we going to switch topics now?
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: No. I just wanted to 21 find out also -- I thought everybod y was through. I wa s 22 withholding my questions. I've only got one more.
23 Are we holding up the Licensee, and if so to 24 what extent? For example, suppose we were not doing 25 these investigations. Would we have proceeded any ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
J 73 1 faster? Would the Licensee have been able to proceed 2 any faster?
3 HR. DENTON: I think we're just about to get 4 on the critical path for the Licensee. Up until he had 5 achieved criticality , which was yesterday, we certainly 6 weren't on a critical path.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s You would no t --
8 MR. DENION: We would not have been on a 9 critical path. He has a very short amount of work to do
- 10 at zero power, maybe just a day or two. So the delta 11 between the next few days and whenever we could decide 12 to permit him to go up to five percent power could be 13 properly attributed to us.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Would he be ready to go 15 up to five percent power now, today?
16 HR. DENTON: I think he'd be ready within a
- 17 day or two after today.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s So if he were ready by l 19 the 23rd and for some reason we don't allow him to go 20 until the 30th, then that seven days would represent --
21 MR. DENTON: Certainly. And I think we do 22 envision that it will be la te next week before the 23 investigation could be complete and we could have a 24 documented basis.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We will get to that. I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554_2345 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
74 I was just trying to understand where we stood on the 2 schedule. And you have to meet --
you made a commitment 3 to meet with the Attorney General of Illinois.
4 MR. DENTON: Before making a decision 5 regarding higher power levels than presently 6 authorized. You see, he had petitioned that the plant 7 not be allowed to start up at all, and in responding we 8 permitted the operation up to zero power.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s I do not know if I am 10 getting into --
11 MR. BICKWIT I do not see any problem.
12 (Laughter.)
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, at least I asked if 14 I was in trouble again.
15 Is there some implication that if he says, 16 well, I do not think you are ready, he is going to be 17 the critical decision?
18 MR. KEPPLER: Could I suggest we leave that
- 19 until later and we 'll tell you our plans for how we 're i
20 going to proceed here?
I l
j 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I just wanted to ask 22 whether in fact the Licensee will meet this June 30th 23 date for environmental qualifications, the 0588.
24 MR. EISENHUT: No way. I don't believe 25 there's any way possible.
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, I
L bMMN - - - -
75 1 MR. VOLLMER. Based on our review of the 2 qualification program that we did for this license, 3 obviously certain things were not qualified and couldn't 4 be qualified until after the June 30th, '82. We 5 understand that most, if not all, of those qualification 6 programs will be complete by June 30th of 1983. So it 7 looks like he will have the great bulk of his equipment, 8 if he is able to maintain his current program, done by 9 June 30th of '83.
10 COMMISSIONFR GILINSKY Well, why a re we 11 putting it to the Licensee? I mean, I would like to see 12 these programs completed as soon as possible, and I 13 would like maximum pressure put on the Licensee to make 14 sure these things are done soon, or as early as 15 possible, and well also.
16 -
MR. EISENHUT But this one is very simple.
17 We have an order to the staff that said, put into the 18 lidenses June 30th, 1982, until further notice.
19 MR. DENTON: We proposed changes in this and 20 the Commission hasn 't formally acted. So we are not 21 sure how to approach this one. So our philosophy has 22 been, until the Commission changes mind we follow the 23 previous guidance.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That's probably sound.
25 (Laughtar.)
ALCERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC.
FMHilifIslQffLftrL CX$T'ITYifffoRL ML FFiFB Wrh WB#L9
76 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I'm pleased to 2 cee that.
3 (Laughter.)
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa At the same time, we 5 need, I think, to have a way of dealing with these 8 things. There is no point in handing out a license a 7 few days before a deadline --
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: They've been trying to 9 get us to change it.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I understand.
11 But nevertheless, here we have a case --
12 CHAIBHAN PALLADINO: Are we going to deal with 13 it case by case or generically?
14 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I. don ' t know.
15 But it doesn't seem to make sense. It leads to 18 disrespect for the conditions of the license.
17 NR. DENTONs Well, there are several cases 18 like this where 737 or previous Commission actions laid 19 on dates and then as time moves on and we find 20 dif ficulty in implementing the dates we 're considering 21 changing them, while a t the same time licenses are going 22 out. So we'd welcome suggestions on how to handle this 23 one and the emergency planning one, where we're trying 24 to stay with the da tes,up 'til the last minute. And if 25 you make a decision in this between now and the time the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
77 1 license issues, we'd naturally conform with it.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, this is an l 3 extreme case of that ph eno m enon . Well, I do not know 4 what the answer is, but I don't think --
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We ought to change the 6 date.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa I'd give them a few 8 more days.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE As far as the 10 qualification goes, we have a couple of things in front 11 of us.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Well, I would at least 13 put an asterisk on there and say, the matter to be dealt 14 with by the Commission, or whatever. Just, people look 15 at these things --
i 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You just gave me the way 17 to get the answer to those. I'm going to have a piece 18 of paper here. As soon as we raise a question about 19 putting that date in a license, we can call for a vote 20 on changing the date.
21 I agree with you, Vic. I don't want to see 22 this --
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: W e ll, we ought to find 24 some way of dealing with it.
25 MR. EISENHUT: I think we agree.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
~
78 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Jim, did you have 2 questions before we close the meeting?
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: No.
4 MR. EISENHUT We had one other topic --
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, wait. Did ICE have 6 some things?
7 3R. EISENHUT: We had a topic on operating 8 experience, an ovarview of what's going on.
9 CHAIRNAN PALLADINO: The testing. All right, 10 let's hear.
11 HR. WALKER: Can we go have the Region III 12 slides?
13 MR. EISENHUT Can you skip the 2.206. Just 14 go directly to the slide entitled " Operating 15 Experiences."
16 MR. KEPPLER: Just let me, for the benefit of 17 the Commissioners that have not met Roger Walker, Roger 18 has been following the inspection activities in LaSalle 19 since late 1978. He was on the site as the senior 20 resident inspector in mid-1979 and stayed there until 21 the becinning of this year when he got promoted to a 22 section chief position in the office.
23 But he has continued to follow th e activities 24 at LaSalle up through and including initial criticality, 25 and I think he's very well qualified to give you a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
, 79 I rundown of the plant.
2 HR. WALKER: Thank you. I will make this as 3 brief as possible. Basically, the first thing up there 4 says initial fuel load, and Darrell already covered it.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN04 Do we have copies of your 6 slides?
7 NR. EISENHUTa Yes. What we did was, we took 8 actually the next three or four, and they're summarized 9 on one slide.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: On the last slide.
11 NR. EISENHUTs The last slide. We just put 12 them for simplicity on one brief table.
13 KR. WALKER: At any rate, they completed fuel 14 load on or about April 30, 1982, which took then 15 approximately 12 days. Now, during that period Region 16 III didn't have significant problems with the Licensee, 17 any significant problems with the fuel load.
18 What we did find was we thought there were 19 some trends as far as LER's that showed up in the form 20 of tech specs, missing surveillances, et cetera, which 21 ve, our next slide will tell you, we addressed in the 22 form of a sanagement meeting and we got some specific 23 commitments on how to correct those.
! 24 At any rate, what they've been doing since 25 fuel load to this present time is taking care of one of ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, Ci3 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTCN o.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
80 1 the licensa conditions that Mr. Gilinsky asked a 2 question on , and tha t was correct deficiencies in the 3 preop test program consistent with the tech spec 4 operability requirements. I'm paraphrasing.
5 The explanation of that, Mr. Gilinsky, is 6 Region III asked that particular condition be put in the 7 license, and that was -- the reason behind it is all 8 preop deficiencies that were discovered during the preop 9 program were not completed at fuel load. We wanted that 10 condition in there to assure that the deficiencies were 11 corrected prior to the system's being used.
12 They are. My inspectors reviewed them and 13 that condition has been met.
14 The remaining thing that they have been doing 15 is completing preoperational testing. There were, oh, I 16 would say, six to eight tests that were deferred to 17 after fuel load, after fuel load because the systems 18 wouldn't be required for fuel load.
19 Basically, the completion of those preop tests 20 were done in cold shutdown mode four or in hot shutdown 21 in the case of the reactor internals vibration test, 22 getting base data on that, and some of the piping 23 vibration monitoring tests. They wars completed in good 24 sha pe .
25 As f ar as the equipment problems that have ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
1 81 1 surfaced, there were approximately seven what we call 2 licensee event reports that were in the form of 3 component failures. There was nothing significant in 4 those seven. There were approximately, I believe at the 5 last time we had five, what we would say, called design, 6 manufacture and construction or installation-related 7 event reports.
8 The most significant ones of those were two 9 instrument lines, one the delta P device, differential to pressure device, and one a flow transmitter. The 11 instrument lines were incorrectly hooked up. Basically 12 the problem behind that was, during the preop tests you 13 do component tests and then you do f unctional tests, but 14 the instruments in question were component tested, where 15 you put in a signal and you get the transmitter to give 16 the alarm or the indication, but it wouldn't show if the i7 lines were hooked up correctly, and they were not 18 functionally testad because it wasn ' t pa rt of the 19 functional testing.
20 The corrective action was that we would --
21 they had to walk down the linec, all the instrument l 22 lines on safety-related equipment, to make sure they 23 were properly connected, properly hooked up, and ,
24 functionally test those they could. And in the preop ,
25 tests for Unit 2 we intend to make sure tha t they are ALDERSON HEPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
82 I functionally testad.
2 I think that was basically all that's on this 3 slide. Unless you have any questions, I'll go on to the 4 next slide, which is assessment of the Licensee's 5 performance since fuel load.
6 (S11da.)
7 Enforcement history. By and large, we've had 8 three noncompliances. One of those was a level four 9 noncompliance, which was security --
to COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Since fuel load?
11 HR. WALKER: Since fuel load.
12 One of those was a level four noncompliance on 13 security and we cannot discuss in open session the 14 security noncompliance. If you wish to discuss it in 15 closed session, we will discuss it there.
16 That one we felt was significant enough that 17 we brought in and had an enforcement conference on that 18 particular one.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO You had a what?
20 MR. WALKER: An enforcement conference.
21 The management meeting I previously discussed ,
22 but I mean, as to why we had it, it was because we felt 23 that we were seeing a trend towards some personnel 24 errors that we did not like. We decided to -- it isn't 25 anything that you wouldn't expect to see in a plant ALDERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
83 1 tha t's starting up initially, where you're getting 2 accustomed to your tech specs, et cetera. But we wanted 3 to make sure we took strong action bef ore it got an7 4 further. .
5 We brought people, the management in, and
~
6 asked for some specific corrections. We've gotten those
/
7 corrections in the form of a letter, and with specific 8 commitments that we can monitor. And I do not think 9
there is s problem there., f
/
- 0 The next one -- if there's no questions on 11 this slide, we'll go to -- .
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You said there were three 13 noncompliances.
14 MR. WALKER: I'm sorry. I didn't elaborate on 15 wha t the other two were.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You said one you could 17 not discuss. And what were the other two?
18 MR. WALKER: Yes, I'm sorry. On: was our 19 inspectors found some fire doors which obviously were 20 not surveilled according to the tech specs, and we cited 21 them for ta s. In other words, they weren't inspecting 22 thei' "re .) ors weekly, as it requires in the tech 23 specse I ththk it's weekly. And they got on it.
24 The other one was, during the containment 25 integrated leak rate test, which was deferred into ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
84 1 preoperational testing, they had one minor procedure 2 violation, which we cited them for. It was basically 3 the operator -- in the middle of the containment 4 in teg ra ted leak rate test he took the isolation valves 5 for the equipment sumps and took them to the automa tic 6 position to pump down the sump and he failed to put them
- 7 back in the manual position which would isolate them.
8 It introduced an error into the containment 9 integrated leak ra te test, but it wa s in th e
- 10 conservative direction, so that we only cited them 11 because they failed to follow their procedures.
. 12 Do you have any questions further than that?
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: No.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What do you mean by 15 tech spec problems?
16 MR. WALKER: Okay. Mr. Ahearne, what we did, 1* that is related to the management meeting that was prior 18 to that. What we had picked up --
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Okay.
20 MB. WALKER: You understand, we picked them up 21 on the LER's. We saw a trend, we took firm action to 22 stop it.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Then also then the 24 personnel-related LER's is the same?
25 HR. WALKER: Exactly the same, sir.
1 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
$3112DTM /Al L,fLE C51XITE6(oTfL f@fL 6 MM
4 85 l
1 Redundancy, if you will.
2 Okay. In my next one -- go to the next !
3 slide. It says " initial criticality" and then it says 4 " power ascension testing." It 's very brief . And what I 5 had intended to tell you is a little bit about the power 6 ascension testing program.
7 Basically, ther bumped -- well, I'll tell 8 you. What I would prefer to do, there's another slide 9 on there that you do not have, and I would like it up to now and I'll just pass these to you. And I'm sorry that 11 you don't have this. These are some graphs of the power 12 ascension test program.
13 Put the next slide up, please.
14 (Slide.)
15 Thank you.
16 Basically what we have here is -- I drew this, 17 so I hope it works out right. And the numbers down at 18 the bottom are time and days f rom start of initial fuel l 19 load. And the other axis, which is not shown, is 20 ti ermal power percent. And I think that you need the 21 slide that picks it up. But the left-hand axis is the 22 thermal power parrent.
23 Giving you perspective, at day 62 is where 24 the,y had anticipated going up to two percent power on 25 that chart, which is the first dip up. Today is I think ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
86 1 day 66 or 67, so they're about four days behind that. l l
2 Ihe period fron zero to 62 would have been to get all 3 the things that I previously said from initial l 4 criticality done and do some of the baseline data for 5 raf protection, et cetera, and get all that done up to 6 day b2.
7 They would already be critical at this point, 8 and at day 62 is about where thEy'd be right now, ready 9 to go to two percent power. But we're -- our 10 investigation is up against them.
11 And then they would proceed on up to five 12 percent power and start doing -- well, basically, they 13 would start doing some testing with IRM 's and control 14 cods, things of that nature. If you see the ramp 15 starting at two percent going up to five percent, that's 16 where they'd be getting their heatup, and they'll start 17 up and they'll go up to 125 pounds, et cetera, et 18 cetera.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: This shows about ten days 20 for the period in which you'd be at five percen t.
21 MR. W ALKER : Yes, sir, that's right. And they 22 would be doing various testing.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Five or below.
24 MR. WALKER: Tha t's correct.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: So if we got -- if you ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
. _ . _ _ _ . - fc0K M EP3-FRlla
t 87 1 gave them an appro val on date X, they'd be read to go up 2 in power on X plus ten.
3 MR. WALKER: That's correct.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s If everything vent 5 smoothly.
6 MR. WALKER: And tha t's more or less why I 7 wanted to present this to you, so you'd have your 8 options available. We can go on with each of these, but 9 it's just varying test plateaus that are described in 10 the FSAR. And I wanted to get you -- all I'm pointing 11 it out for is to give you an idea of the time frame that 12 rou would need to go up to five pe rcen t power.
13 If there's any particular plateau you'd like 14 to talk about, I will, but I don't think there's any 15 point in going into each detail.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You have scrams shown 17 here a number of times. Are those particular scram 18 tests?
19 MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. For instance, that 20 first scram would terminate what they call test 21 condition one, and it's a manual scram which initiates l
22 the shutdown from offsite control room test. And I 23 think the second scram is a turbine, turbine test, and 24 so on. And I think, getting on down here, I think the 25 last scram -- the last or the next to last, I'd have to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
_ M WZij(RO AS @,W W$HINGTCN, y o.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 _,
~
88 1 review my notes -- is where th e y get into the loss of 2 offsite power test. And that's basically what those 3 plateaus are.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Oksy. Any questions?
5 MR. WALKER 4 I didn't mean to cut you off, but 6 the detail I don't think is worth it.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Are there any 8 other items we should discuss before we close the 9 meeting?
10 MR. KEPPLER: If you'd like, we are prepared 11 to give you in open session a brief chronology of how we 12 got into the allegations, what the staff actions were 13 with respect to the allegations, and how we categorized 14 the various findings. But we want to present the 15 findings in closed session. So I will leave it up to 16 you as to how you would want to proceed.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's fine with 18 me.
I 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think the more we hear 20 in open session, the better Jff we are. I'm not trying 21 --
22 MR. BICKWIT Under the circumstances, I think 23 you're required to hear it in open session.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Then why don 't we go 25 ahead.
ALCERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
89 1 TR. KEPPLER: This is Chuck Norelius, Director 2 of the Division of Engineering and Technical Inspection, 3 and he's been basically organizing and managing the 4 investigative effort. And I'm going to turn the 5 presentation over to him.
6 MR. NORELIUS: Okay. We would first just like 7 to describe how we received the allegations, what the 8 staff response -- put up the first slide, please.
9 (Slide.)
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you have any 11 handouts?
12 MR. NORELIUS: Yes, we have.
13 MR. EISENHUTa All of the ones that we use in 14 the open session are here.
15 MR. NORELIUS4 I'd just like to describe how 16 we received the allegations, what the staff response ,
17 was, the actions which we have taken, and then thirdly, 18 describe for you specifically our resolution of those.
19 Next slide, please.
20 (Slide.)
21 This is a chronology. This started by our 22 receipt of a request to initiate a show-cause 23 proceeding, which came from the Attorney General of the 24 S ta te of Illinois. Attached to that request were two 25 specific affidavits, one from a driller who described ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
90 I how he did the drilling in the concrete walls at the 2 sites and the second affida vit was a technical 3 consultant's statement, which did not have any specific 4 allegations as such, but described problems that could 5 be encountered if that activity was not properly 6 controlled.
7 Following receipt of that, on March 31st Mr.
8 Denton called for a meeting with the Commonwealth Edison 9 Company and Sargent C lundy, architect-engineer, and the 10 Attorney General's office was also represented. And at 11 that time the Licensee and AE were asked to identify and 12 describe the control program which they had in place to 13 address the coring drilling issues.
14 On April 28th, a second request to initiate a 15 show-cause proceeding was received from the Illinois 16 Friends of the Earth, and subsequently on May 3rd the i
17 State Attorney General amended their earlier request, 18 but essentially had the same items in their request, and 19 I'll c.me to those items in a subsequent slide.
20 On June the 2nd we had a meeting within Region l
21 III with representatives of the Illinois Attorney 22 General's office, also with the Illinois Friends of the 23 Earth, and a consultant to them, the Government 24 Accountability Project representative. And the pt rpose 25 of that meeting.was to clarify our understanding of the
! ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC,
[ 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
91 1 allegations as we had them, to make sure that we fully 2 understood the issues which they were bringing to us, 3 and to ask them that if they had any more coming to so 4 advise us of that so that we could have all the current 5 information available to us to proc 40'. with our 6 investigative activities.
7 Next slide, please.
8 (Slide.)
9 Just to review for you the general issues 10 which were in the petitions, which are public 11 documents. The first issue was one of coring drilling 12 in the reactor building walls. They also raised an 13 issue as to the thickness of the roof in the ofrgas 14 building.
15 The second petition expanded the first 16 concern, really, to not only the building walls but also 17 to the containment walls inside containment and the 18 reactor pedestal. It also-discussed voids in the 19 concrete, the fact that -- it was alleged tha t piping 20 was not installed according to blueprints, that there 21 was f oreign ma tter in structural concrete, and that-22 thoride had been improperly added to concre te .
23 Initially, really, about the same time as we 24 formally received the first petition, we had heard that 25 there was some concern expressed, that had been related ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-3 45
92 1 directly to our office, and we had done some onsite 2 review of a single con tractor's activities. And then ;
l 3 subsequent to this formal submission, we went to the 1 4 architect-engineers with one of our inspectors and a 5 couple of structural engineers from headquarters and we 6 looked at the actual drawings and calculations which 7 the y had , and we determined the basis for the 8 engineering judgments that they had made. And we did 9 some review of the information that had been presented 10 at the Nar=h 31 meeting.
11 Subsequent to that, with the receipt of the 12 additional allegations which came in , we expanded our 13 effort considerably and v'e put together a team of 14 people. I just might run through the types of people 15 that we've had on this to pursue the issue since that 16 time.
17 We had one of our section chiefs lead this 18 team. We had an investigator from our office. We've 19 had two civil engineers involved, two structural 20 engineers, two operations specialists, one QA 21 specialist, and three security specialists. And up to 22 this point we estimate we have put something like 100 l 23 inspector days in assessing this overall problem.
24 As a part of our expanded response, we 25 interviewed the particular individuals who had submitted l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
93 I affidavits and others whose names we received through a 2 subsequent meeting that I described, and others whom the 3 affiants referenced. A total of 29 nanes were provided 4 to us, and these represented a broad variety in types of 5 people -- drillers, laborers, pipefitters, security 6 people, and so on and so forth.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: This is both current 8 and previous employees?
9 MR. NOBELIUS: Yes, both current and previous 10 employees.
11 Of the 29 names provided to us, two we could 12 not find. They had moved or they didn't have telephones 13 or for some reason we could not find them. Ten of them 14 that we contacted declined to talk to us about the 15 issues. And we actually conducted 17 interviews of 18 those that remained.
17 As a result of this, we identified a total of 18 36 separate specific allegations, which have quite a 19 range, and I'll talk later how we categorize these. Our 20 general approach to solving these has been to review the 21 existing program which the Licensee and its contractors 22 has. We looked at our own inspection records. We l
23 toured the site with six different individuals who came 24 to the site and toured it with us and pointed out 25 specific areas where they had concerns.
l ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
94 1 And in some cases we went to some independent 2 verifications to help resolve the problem. This 3 included some coring. By independent, I say that it's 4 things that we asked the Licensee to do. It was done 5 with us being there. This involved some coring in the 6 masonry walls, some chemical analysis, some torquing of 7 bolts. And then we did some visual inspections of 8 structures and core samples which they had on site.
9 Next slide, please.
10 (Slide.)
11 As I mentioned earlier, we had 36 separate 12 allegations which we have defined, and in looking 13 through these we attempted to give them some categories 14 as to their importance. We put in category one items of 15 significance which we felt may have some impact on the
! 16 Unit 1 opera tions, those which we should promptly 17 address.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: How many of them were in i
19 tha t category?
20 HR. NORELIUS: We put 20 in that category.
l 21 In category two we put items that we felt 22 should be addressed, but we did not think they needed to i 23 be addressed inmediately. There were some items, for 24 example, that seemed clearly related to Unit 2 and so, 25 while we may wish to address them, we felt tha t that was ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 400 VIRGINIA A_VE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
95 1 not urgent. So we placed them in a seconda ry category 2 in terms of prioritizing our own effort to resolve 3 th e se.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Could you give me a ;
1 I
5 couple of examples of category one type items?
6 HR. NORELIUS: Some that are public record:
7 the voids in the concrete, the drilling and coring 8 problems. Those types of things are in category one.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s And how many were in 10 category two?
11 MR. NORELIUS: We have seven items in category 12 two.
13 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO: And you say those related 14 primarily to Unit 27 15 MR. NORELIUS: There's some broad categories.
16 Ihere are some that are general, that we think we maybe 17 should look at, but they're not specifically -- they 18 don 't seem to us to relate to Unit 1 operation, 19 affecting Unit 1 operation. So some of them are general 20 in na ture, that something was inadequate. We will talk 21 about those specifically.
22 Then we placed in category three items which 23 require no further NRC staff action. These are items 24 which are either so general in nature that we did not 25 know how to even address them, and there are nine items ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
96 1 in that, that listing, or they are some issues which are 2 of concern of general safety, which we plan to refer to 3 OSHA, for example, some items which generally speak --
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: By general safety, you l
5 sean worker safety?
6 MR. NORELIUS: Yes, worker safety. So the 7 type of things that we felt we could not address, 8 clearly non-safety-related systems or whatever, we put 9 in category three, and we would not intend to go into 10 those in terms of an investigative effort.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEa But you will refer 12 those?
13 ER. NORELIUS: We will refer those.
14 Beyond that, we would get into the specifics 15 of the allegations. So unless you have any further 16 questions on our approach --
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADIMO: No questions?
18 Then are we prepared to close the meeting to 19 hear the status of the ongoing investigation?
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Why don't we allow 22 ourselves a couple of minutes to permit people to leave 23 that are no t involved in the closed meeting , and tha t 24 will take us five minutes. So we'll recess for five 25 minutes.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
97 1 (Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the Commission was 2 adjourned, to reconvene in closed session.)
3 * *
- 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l m
- TCCE.AR R.hawcRY CON!C332CN
- ::L2 L2 = car:Lf7 Cha; 3ht at achec picc:tecing: b ef c r e ~.hr.:
COMMISSION MEETING is the = attar cf:. PUBLIC MEETING - Discussion of Full Power Operating License for LaSalle-1 CaC4 Cf Frccetcirg: June 22, 1982 OcckaC !! umber:
Flace cf ?rcceeci g: Washincton, D. C.
woes held as herein appears, and chah this is the cet;ical :: scse:-i; thersci Tcr :he CLLs ci che Cc==L:stcc.
Mary C. Simons Official Repertar (T/:ec) f ,- w r i &
Official Eapcc:ar (514:ac*.:re)
I t
OUTLINE e GENERAL PLANT DESCRIPTION e SELECTED ITEMS OF REVIEW MARK II CONTAINMENT FIRE PROTECTION SEPARATION OF ELECTRICAL CABLES SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR FUNCTION BWR PROGRAM FOR LOW POWER TESTING STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS NUREG-0737 DATED ITEMS DEFERRED INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW 2.206 ALLEGATIONS
SUMMARY
e REGION III REPORT
- EXPERIENCE SINCE APRIL 17, 1982 ASSESSMENT OF LICENSING DURING LOW POWER LICENSE ACTIVITIES READINESS OF PLANT FOR 100% OPERATION l
i
GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION e BACKGROUND GE MARK II CONTAINMENT AND A BWR/S PLANT LOCATED NEAR SENECA, ILLIN0IS 3323 MWT; 1078 MWE
- CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ISSUED SEPTEMBER 10, 1973 APPLICATION FOR OPERATING LICENSE DOCKETED -
MAY 11, 1977 CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION UNIT 1 - COMPLETED UNIT 2 - JANUARY 31, 1983 e STARTUP SCHEDULE LICENSE ISSUED - APRIL 17, 1982 STARTED FUEL LCADING - APRIL 18, 1982 COMPLETED FUEL LOADING - APRIL 30, 1982 INITIAL CRITICALITY - JUNE 21, 1982
l MARK II CONTAINMENT e FIRST MARK II REACTOR THROUGH LICENSING PROCESS e CONTAINMENT IS STEEL-LINED POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE STRUCTURE e OVER-AND-UNDER CONFIGURATION e EXTENSIVELY REVIEWED e USED CONSERVATIVE LOADS
- LEAD PLANT REVIEW e IST U.S. MARK II TO PERFORM SRV/T-QUENCHER TEST e DESIGN PRESSURE - 45 PSI e INERTED ATMOSPHERE i
l l
e 12F NNNNx////t &
l ;
E Mmmuner Vesami ,
. !,< l 5.: ~
- $ 7
. . i:i:-
Fumf Posi i:. Secondary Containment
?."'. 5 m" . ' -
b i; .
or, '
" y
- ,,Pnmary Contanment axr {
p N - t-
/
9
[.$ ji:i :: --- Building i p !
%, , f .'s.
e ._ g y
a u 47' u,-: = _" , e..
C___._..7 ,'
i -
- IIh .),
.: / - - g p
h: ..:.:+;O; m ':+ .vf+ . e.g0. .. QMO, _ _ -:v g
\
se
-e / 87* -l Column t
Rameter Penastai - Wetwel BWR-MARK !!
PRESSURE SUPPRESSON
. . . - . . . _ _ _ _. _ . ~ . . . .
- ,l
FIRE PROTECTION l l
e PLANT REVIEWED AGAINST APPENDIX A-BTP 9.5-1 AND GDC-3 MEETS ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS e COMPARISON REVIEW AGAINST APPENDIX R l i
e NO IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES e TWO MINOR ACCEPTABLE DIFFERENCES HYDROSTATIC HOSE TESTING FREQUENCY NO AUTOMATIC DETECTION SYSTEMS IN AREAS WITH NO COMBUSTIBLES i
i
(
SEPARATION OF ELECTRICAL CABLES e DESIGN DOES NOT MEET REG GUIDE 1.75 IN A NUMBER OF PLACES SAFETY RELATED CABLES ARE T00 CLOSE TO UNQUALIFIED CABLES e SAFETY RELATED CABLES PROTECTED BY SOLID BOTTOM TRAYS OR CONDUIT e STAFF HAS REQUIRED TESTS TO CONFIRM ADEQUACY OF PROTECTION t
l l
l
SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR FUNCTION e STA WILL BE COLLEGE GRADUATE, SRO, AND BE PART OF OPERATION PERSONNEL - STATION CONTROL ROOM ENGINEER
- LA SALLE SHIFT CREW 3 SR0s
- 1 SCRE (Ill CONTROL ROOM)
- 1 SHIFT ENGINEER (SUPERVISOR)
- 1 SHIFT FOREMAfl (IN-PLANT) l
- FOR ACCIDENT CONDITIONS:
- SCRE REPLACED BY SHIFT FOREMAN (SRO)
- ALTERNATE APPROACH FOUND ACCEPTABLE i
BWR PROGRAM FOR LOW POWER TESTING e LA SALLE INITIAL TEST PROGRAM WILL PROVIDE TRAINING FOR NORMAL AND OFF-NORMAL PLANT OPERATIONS e STAFF REdVIRED ONE ADDITIONAL LOW POWER TEST SIMULATED LOSS OF ONSITE AND OFFSITE AC STATION BLACK 0UT PERFORM DURING FIRST FUEL CYCLE UTILIZING DECAY HEAT l
{
t
STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS e PERFORMED FULL-SCALE EXERCISE ON DECEMBER 4, 1980 GRUNDY COUNTY PERFORMED POORLY DEFICIENCIES IN EXERCISE e PERFORMED A SMALL-SCALE EXERCISE ON APRIL 15, 1982 GRUNDY COUNTY WAS FOUND SATISFACTORY IN DRESDEN EXERCISE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1981 PARTICIPANTS - STATE, LA SALLE COUNTY AND LICENSEE CONCLUSION OF TEST WAS THAT THERE IS REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE PROTECTED
NUREG-0737 DATED ITEMS DEFERRED .
0737 Item 0737 Date Proposed Date Basis I.G.1 Training during At power levels no One test - first This test will be conducted Low-Power Testing greater than 5 percent fuel cycle by decay heat source since a significant amount of heat is required.
II.D.3 Direct Indication of Prior to fuel load Prior to startup Installed, is qualified but Safety Relief Valves after the 1st re- awaiting verification of fueling outage qualification record.
II.F.2 Instr. for Detection January 1,1982 July 31,1982 BWR Owners Group will submit Inadequate Core an analysis report by July Cooling 1982 addressing this item.
BWRs do have level indication, i
II.K.1.22 Proper Function of' lleat Removal Systems and 4 July 1,1981 Prior to startup Engineering is completed I I . K . 3.13 Separation of flPCI after the 1st and equipment qualification and RCIC Initial refueling outage is in progress.
Level s )
! I I . K . 3.15 Modify Detection July 1,1981 Prior to startup Engineering is completed and Logic for Spurious after the first equipment qualification is in i
Isolation of HPCI refueling outage progress.
& RCIC II.K.3.21 Restart of Core 4 months prior to OL Prior to startup Engineering is completed and Spray and LPCI after the first equipment qualification is refueling outage in progress.
INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW LICENSEE RESPONSE TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ASSURANCES OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REPORT SUBMITTED JANUARY 4, 1982 STAFF'S ASSESSMENT OF REPORT WAS FAVORABLE LICENSEE WAS REQUESTED TO HAVE LIMITED INDEPENDENT REVIEW ON ONE SYSTEM (LOOP C RHR IN LPCI MODE)
TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES INDEPENDENT REVIEWER REPORT WAS SUBMITTED JUNE 3, 1982 AND ADDENDUM JUNE 18, 1982 TELEDYNE FINDINGS .
20 ERROR / DEVIATIONS REPORTS AND 31 OPEN-ITEM REPORTS WERE SUBMITTED TO LICENSEE BASED ON REVIEW 0F LI'CENSEE RESPONSE TELEDYNE CONCLUDED THAT THE AB0VE ANOMALIES WERE EITHER CLOSED OR DID NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT SAFETY IMPACT STAFF'S FINDINGS THE DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM BY TES PROVIDES ADDITIONAL ASSURANCE FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE, AS-BUILT CONDITIONS, AND CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS
l 2.206 ALLEGATIONS
- PURPOSE:
-1. RECEIPT OF ALLEGATIONS
- 2. STAFF ACTIONS IN REPONSE TO THE ALLEGATIONS
- 3. RESOLUTION OF ALLEGATIONS l
l
CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
. MARCH 24, 1982 REQUEST TO INITIATE SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING FROM ArrORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ILLINOIS, WITH TWO AFFIDAVITS ATTACHED
. MARCH 31, 1982 MEETING WITH COMMONWEALTH EDISON AND SARGENT &
lJUNDY (ILLINDIS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ATTENDANCE)
. APRIL 28, 1982 REQUEST TO INITIATE SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING, FROM ILLINOIS FRIENDS OF THE EARTH, WITH FOUR AFFIDAVITS ATTACHED
. MAY 3, 1982 AMENDED REQUEST FOR SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ILLINOIS
. JUNE 2, 1982 ftETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, GOVE.WdENT i
ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT /ILLItOIS FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
i ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONS ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL (3/24/82)
. CORING AND DRILLING IN REACTOR BUILDING WALLS
. ROOF OF 0FF-GAS BUILDING ILLIN0IS FRIENDS OF THE EARTH AND IAG (5/3/82)
. CORING AND DRILLING IN CONTAltNENT BUIw!NG AND REACTOR PEDESTAL
. VOIDS IN CONCRETE
. PIPES NOT INSTALLED ACCORDING TO BLUEPRINTS
. FOREIGN tdATTER IN STRUCTURAL COFERETE
. CHLORIDE IffROPERLY ADDED TO CONCRETE
STAFF RESP 0f6E INITIAL RESPONSE
. REVIEW DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS i
. DETERMINE BASIS OF ENGINEERING JUDGTEfTS BY AE
. REVIEW UTILITY AND AE PROGRAMS FOR CONTROL OF DRILLING AND CORING EXPANDED RESPONSE .
. INTERVIEW AFFIANTS AND REFERENCED INDIVIDUALS
. CATEGORIZE ALLEGATIONS
. FOR SIGNIFICANT MATTERS
- REVIEN RECORDS
- MAKE VISUAL OBSERVATIONS
- INTERVIEW PEOPLE
- PERFORM INDEFENDENr VERIFICATIONS AS APPROPRIATE e
CATEGORIZATION OF Al1FGATIONS CATEGORY I ITEMS OF SIGNIFICANCE milch MAY AFFECT lh!T 1 OPERATION CATEGORY ll ITEMS OF SIGNIFICANCE OR OF GENERAL CONCERN WHICH ARE NOT AFFECTED BY lh!T 1 OPERATION CATEGORY lli ITEMS WHICH REQUIRE NO STAFF ACTI M
- GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
- MATTERS OUTSIDE NRC JURISDICTION
s OPERATING EXPERIENCE SINCE LICENSE ISSUANCE COMPLETED INITIAL FUEL LOAD (OPERATIONS IN MODE 5, REFUELING)
COMPLETED REMAINING PRE 0PERATIONAL TESTING (OPERATIONS IN MODE 4, COLD SHUTDOWN, AND MODE 3, HOT SHOTDOWN)
EQUIPMENT RELATED LICENSEE REPORTS NUMBER SIGNIFICANCE INITIAL CRITICALITY ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE SINCE LICENSE ISSUANCE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
- ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE
- MANAGEMENT MEETING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PROBLEMS PERSONNEL RELATED LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS NUMBER SIGNIFICANCE MAJOR MILESTONES TO COMPLETE PRIOR TO FULL POWER OPERATIONS l
POWER ASCENSION TESTING l
l l
l l
L
m m u m m uu m vwmys mmwnynammW(WW.WMMW
~
3;>
- 12/81 p TP.ANSMITTAL TO: S::=
L Document Control Desk,
~$
- . 016 Phillips '
p
- i:)
53
', ADVANCED COPY TO: O ~The Public Document P,oom -
DATE: <==
6 /Oc2 cc: OPS File ,@
From: SECY OPS Branch #
p
~
C&R (Natali.e-) p Attached.are'jcopies of a Commission meeting ,@
~
transcript /s/ and related meeting documen't/s/. They b
%- are being forwarded for entry on the Daily M cession $:>
List and placement in the Public Docume~nt Room. No 5:2 i
~ other distribution is requested or required. Existing DCS identification documents wherever known. numbers '- are listed on the indiv.idual b
' -b Meeting Titie: h f Adb ewAJ ej) o o w.aj hod -
2}lb-1 pen t/
P MEETING DATE: Closed ITEM DESCRIPTIO1:
[/!.11/d
/ Copies DOS COPIES:
(1 of each Checked)
[M Advanced
- May To PDR .
- Original be p
- 1. g//Z4Mh Duplicate @
o feA)///ita/GIA]>$3 u - V r
/1DW)
/
e Document I
Dup
- Cocy*
h
(
} _
h
< =::
- 2.' *
, p e -
?c b
- 3. *-
- 4. -
S.
- lb e b
- p p
- e
- Verify if in DOS, and g
b' ,l
~
ch'ange to "PDR (PDR is advanced one of each document, two
- available."
- of each SECY paper.) {
l 2
Si 0 ^