ML20140G947

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Notification of 760521 Meeting W/Util in Bethesda,Md to Discuss Criteria to Be Used for Analysis of High Energy Line Breaks.Related Info Encl
ML20140G947
Person / Time
Site: Midland, 05000000
Issue date: 05/01/1976
From: Crocker L
NRC
To: Kniel K
NRC
Shared Package
ML19255C661 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-602 NUDOCS 8510080277
Download: ML20140G947 (5)
v • d • e


Text

. ,

j,#"' S UNITED STATES

$4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y

j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 May 1, 1976 Docket Nos. p Karl Kniel, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch 2, DPM HEETING WITH CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Time and Date: 9:00 AM, Friday, 21 May 1976 Location: Room P-ll4, Phillips Building, k Bethesda, Md. 1 Purpose : Discussion of criteria to be used for the analysis of high-energy line breaks. See attached agenda.

Parti ci pan ts : CPCo (R. Bauman, et al)

NRC (L. Crocker, W. LeFave, J. Kovacs)

MC W L. P. Crocker Senior Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch 2 Division or' Project Management Enelosure :

As, stated Fu #8?F "5 '

BRUNPER85-602 PDR

s,

.- . Y. m[y -

1}. ED 111C!! 1:::r!!CY 1.II E E!!FAl' A!!Al.Y,9T.S py.;LN; .& id.,a-()

~

Pl:0P

- i

, lir.rTI::C AGt!:aA-~

q ., 5 V..-
1. Interpretation of piping runs, branch runn, and' teiminal evid ., points m

Uu propose t. hat piping runs and branch runs for piping inside and outside contahcent be treated as a total piping systcu between fir.cd pointi (auchorr) since the stress anr. lysisand perforced ceismic considerc stress .

it as such. Uc perfon,i thermel, dead ucinht, snalyses for t.he total system including branch lines (within anchors). .

The analysia considers, all of the strcsc intensificationcofactors ponents.

and flexibility factorn as applicable to various'pipin::

'thus, we propose that breal.s be postulated uithin the cystesa as follows: .

1. Terminal end points (anchors)

(Branch connections to tuain pipin;; are not considered es terainal ends;)

a

1. At all linine.c which c::.a ed the st.ress criteria of it.C.1.46 (As a wints...n, tun (2) internodiate brecPc vill be selected j

- for cat'. piping 1yute..i,0:ain and branch lines within anchors 3.)

II. Longitudin.d uloc brcals at ternii.cl cad pointa .

Uc proput.c that lon ;i! cd19~1 clo: breaks net. be portMnted to cccur This at ter..im.1 e:h' point ? fM pipi t:; without lon;;itedical t.eidc.

proposal is ic. accent.ui. o . th Section 3b(2)(a) of the Branch 3-1. ad e.',0014 he a r. c.conctle assumption fcr 1

Technical Poritien ::U:

' Ilidland l':dts 1 cnd 2 both inside sul outside of containrtent. .

III. 1.ongitudinal clot breaks at interuediate lect.tions i

We propose that Jon:ds udin tl. clet breako not be postulated to occur l at intercedia:.e Jocatic.ns 'icec the 1:cp,ulatory Guide 1.46 criterion This 3

for a nininum nunNor of b; . ah Jocat ionn must be satisfied.

proposal is in :ecort!nnee uith sect, ton 3b(2)(b) of the I! ranch Technical Position b!G 3-1 and.cbculd be a reasonable assur ption for 1;idit.nd 1 nits 1 and 2 both inside and outside cont.ainment.

(CPCo) 1)Iucussion letter of .t.ctoberof3 iten 3 uipertainirq:

A . .Schwancer (imC) to S.11ouei i

IV.

4 0, l'174, . .

  • PSAlt.

4 V. Modcrat.e rn.*rgy Anclyr.Ju C on September P. ace.1 on agreecents reached in Ihe necting uit.h the !?i:

11,1973, it is our und.trut.andinr. th.it noderate energy analysis is

~

not required for ::'dland. .

t t

e

.W"d

-e.%-

-r-%,--m.e6.*-

-A 9.p. 49A=-ga- 9 9 ,, -m -

, y n- v+,

9

.- --. .o

(,,

t L

\

4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Aten S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck, Member William C. Parler, Member in the Matter of

. Dock:,t Nos. 50-329 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 50'330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)

Mr. Harold F. Reis, Washington, D. C., for the applicant, Consumers Power Company.

Messrs. Myron M. Cherry and Robert Grahm, Chicago, Ilhnois, for the Sagir.aw Intervenors (Sagmaw Valley Nuclear Study Group,et eL).

Mr. Howard J. Voget, Minneapolis, Minn., for the Mapleton Intervenors (Nelson Aeschliman,etal.).

Mr. . Milton R. Wessel, New York, N. Y. (Mr. James N. O' Conner, Midland, Mich., with him on the brief), for the Intervenor, Dow Chemical Company.

Mr. David E. Kartalia, for the AEC Regulatory Staff.

DECISION (ALAB.123)

On December 14, 1972, the Licensing Board issued an initial decision, agthorizing the issuance of construction permits to the Consumers Power Company (applicant) for the Midland Plant, Units I and 2.

Before us are separate sets of exceptions to that decision which were filed by the Mapleton and Saginaw Intenenors, as well as a Motion of the Saginaw Intervenors dated March 28,1973, seeking to supplemen:

r the record on appeal wit!) certain " newly discovered information."

We have heretofore considered and ruled on two of the Saginaw Intervenors' exceptions which we 7- regarded as raising questions which should be decided prior to our resolution of the remaining issues encompassed by the myriad of exceptions filed in ALAB-101, RAl.73 2 60 (February 20,1973), we

  • U, denied the Saginaw Intervenors' exception VI.B, insofar as it sought to disqualify the members of the p* $-

LJcensing Board because of alleged bias or prejudgment. Subsequently, in ALAB.106, RAl.73 3182

. (March 26,1973), we disposed of the issue which had been raised with respect to quality assurance and quality control in Saginaw Intervenors' exception Ill. F. We now turn to the remaining issues.

,, y . g ,.'. . ! / ;i p An adequate description of the reactor under consideration, and of the procedural background against I which we are responding to various exceptions, appears in ALAB.106, supra, and need not be here reiterated. Fo!!owing our issuance of ALAB.106, the Saginaw Intervences on March 28,1973, filed with this Board a Motion and Supplement to their previously filed exceptions, seeking to supplement the record on appeal with "newiy discovered information." That information consisted of a letter from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) to the AEC Chairman dated December 18,1972, and a responsive letter dated February 3,1973, both concerning the generic resolution of certain issues relating to the safety of light water cooled reactors.The applicant and staff opposed the motion on grounds oflack of timeliness and of nonrelevance.While it is not clear exactly when the Saginaw Intervenors became aware, or should have become aware, of the exchange of correspondence, the letters in question are possibly relevant n

I h

, g m - g ,,

s ,

N, "Mv CM:4-*

-^ ^"" . _ . . . _ _

Itx

+ 1

_ ,w.as '

\ s

('

i e

i l

. 4 .

1 i

I Intenenors further corrplain that the letters and bulletm had not been forwarded to them. But there is I no rule that requnes the forwardmg of documents of this type to an intervenor. The documents were '

deposited in the Public Document Room, as required, and they were available to intervenors and anyone ,

else. Indeed, intervenors assert that they became aware of the information in this manner. In sum, the }

failure to send the documents to intervenors irnaded none of their substatial rights, j The exception is therefore denied.'" *

2. Saginaw Interrenors' exception II. G. asserts that because of " amendments" to the staff's evaluation, e the ACRS review was not in accordance with Section 182.b of the Atomic Energy Act.'" As an i!!ustration of such an "anrndment," they point to the approval by the staff of the Intenm Acceptance Criteria for the emergency core coolmg for Babcock & Wilcox reactors, including Shdland. {

y We do not agiee with this analysis. The ACRS reviewed this reactor and reported twier to the

{*

Comnussion before the radiological phase of the hearing.'" The ACRS also resiemed the Interim ECCS Cnteria which were adepted by the Comnussion in June 1971. When the criteria were first approved, they a did not include models for the Babcock & Wilcox or Combustion Engmeermg reactors. Follomng the staff's approval of models for these two vendors in December 197], the ACRS reviewed the new criteria incorporating these models and approved them for use.'"

The Babcock & Wilcox model to which the khdland reactors must conform is detailed in Part 4 of the Intenm Cr;teria. it ;s obsious that, having reviewed the appbeauon for the Midland reactors previously, and havmg approved the Interim Criteria for the ECCS of Babcock and Wilcox reactors, there was no need for further ACRS review of the Midland reactors.

3.The question of the need for further ACRS review is also raised by the Sagmaw Intervenors' Motion of March 28,1973, to incorporate into the record on appeal an exchange of correspondence between the ACRS and the Commission relating to ACRS " generic items." By letter of December 18,1972,the ACRS transmitted a hst of generic conce-ns which it had identified in entie, imen en inkh! fac:hti,. The December 18 Ictter hsted 25 of the items as being resolved, with the other 22 items remaining unresolved.

In its response of February 5,1973, the Commission mamfested its intent to continue to conduct research in order to resolve the other items on a generic basis. It is to be noted that,2rt its December 18 letter, the ACR5 makes it clear that resolution of an item " indicates that the Committee is satisfied in a generic sense;" and that, for unresolved items, the ACR3 "will contmue to consider [thesel items and their significance to safety on a case-by-case basis until generic resolution is reached."

The Sagmaw Intervenors focus on the unresolved generic items and assert,in effect, that they must be resolved prior to issuance of any further construction pernuts.The intervenors, of course,had every reason to be aware of the unresolved items apphcable to the Midland reactors prior to the close of hearings here, since they had been reflected in the ACRS letters. That some of them remam unresolved (in the sense of the ACP.S letter of December 18, 1972) is not new information which would jusury reopening of this record. The only new information is that 25 of these generic items have been resolved.

Additionally, the lack of resolution of certain items on a generic basis does not mean that,as applied to the Midland reactors, the particular items have not been satufactorily cealt with. Such apphcable items have been considered in the review of these reactors by the regulatory start, the ACRS.and the Licensing Board. Accordingly, the exchange of correspondence in question raises no question as to the vahdity of any of the Ucensing Board's findmgs.

4.Mapleton Intervenors' exception 3 focuses on the Licensing Board's finding that site meteorology data were incornplete '" claiming that construction pernuts may not issue prior to the completion of the rirtecrological data and analysis. AEC regulations provide otherwise,and permit certain information to be developed during plant construction.8 8 7 uhen further meteorological data are required, the AEC makes 8 Our discussion in Part Ill,m<pra, adequately disposes of the intervenors' assertion concerning the Licensing Board's obhgation independently to imestigate snatters such as these.

'

  • 42 U.S.C. 2232(b).

'"I4 tiers from ACRS to the Chairman of the Comnussion, dated June 18.1970 and September 23,1970.

g Letter from ACR$ to Chairman of the Commimon, dated January 7,1972.

' "laital Decision, par. 23.

'"10 Cf R g 50.35(aM2) and (4).

349

.m

i l

,( #7 fp il0 l

I l

Excerpts from 199th ACRS Meeting Nov. 11-13, 1976

- L .. .

Minutes of 199th ACRS Meeting Meeting Dates: Novenber' 11-13, 1976 L. ACRS Reports and Ietters

1. Suoplemental Report on Midland Plant, Uhits 1 and 2 In response to a request from Chairnan D. M. Head of the -

l Midland Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the Conmittee prepared a supplemental report on the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, identifying the generic items applicable to the Midland Plant which had been previously " identified by the Regulatory Staff and the ACES" (see Appendix XLVI) .

Fo/A-f5-(:oL B/37 l

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20140G947&oldid=3366878"