ML20140H028
Text
'
.' i , ,
,o. .
'1 liv i w q[J DE:'oRK4DUh Fun: U. Unrer.t Cnair:.un, ACh5 Subcomittee on hiolona Plant i Units 1 L 2 FMh e: O. Fischer, Staf f tngineer 5'JL,L'd'.IITEL UN 6110LiC0 PLAriT Uf41Td 1 2 - etAY 20 & 21, IW2 -
S*J oJ tL l :
silDLnk, hlCdluta 1 nove pre,iarca toe ottacned raceting surr ury f or your review. Copies are Daing distributed to tne otner ACnS me...bers and Subcomittee consultants f or their inf or ation and co rrat. Lorrections and ddcitions will De includea in the t.iuates of toe treting, attctn a.nt:
As stdted cc: nCn He. vers slab lecnnical Statt P. Jovis, AC4.3 Con >Litant L. tpler, ALAS Consultant ri . Lipinst.1, aLed Consulterit J. 02terper.,, ntnd Consultant F. Forker, ALns Lonsultorit P. Po.=2ro;,, Alti$ tonsultont R. Scavuzzo, Aldh Consultarit
- h. Irifunsc, ALHb Consultant
- 4. Lucons, ALKS Consultant
- k. Foster, ACnd Consultant E. Case,f.kK L. uood6.in, HRH q g ,,g 4 R. DeYoung, it
- k. Minogue, ht.b h jl U. f.isennut, i.H!!
- x. Vollmer, t.xR J. Keppler, hkh 0510000394 050930 f;le*, Mgf 3 Q
- k. Purpl e '..i, i.nh
- t. Adensa
- 9. Hood. w
- d. r;erson, tiud ..................... ........................ ....................
orric > . . . . . . . . . . .g. . g .g t.,... w ........... ........................
sua Aus) ........................ ........................ ........................ ...................... DFl$r14r.'awh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................
oave >
usam im-mwo
.nac ronu ais oo-soi nncu eno OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l
r
- F0IAEXEMPTION(b)5 PROPOSED
SUMMARY
OF THE MAY 20 & 21, 1982 MEETING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIDLAhD PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 PURPOSE:
Tne perpose of tne meeting was to review the application of Consumers Power Company for a license to operate the Midland Plant Units 1 & 2.
PRINCIPAL ATTENDEES:
ACRS NRC STAFF i
D. Okrent, Cnairman R. Tedesco W. Mathis, ACRS Member E. Adensam D. Moeller, ACRS Member D. Hood C. Siess, ACRS Member R. Hernan P. Davis, ACRS Consultant (part-time) J. Knight E. Epler. ACRS Consultant R. Lobel W. Lipinski, ACRS Consultant L. Reiter J. Osterberg, ACRS Consultant J. Kimball F. Parker, ACRS Consultant J. Kane P. Pomeroy, ACRS Consultant (part-time) J. Peschel R. Scavuzzo, ACRS Consultant R. Cook M. Trifunac, ACRS Consultant (part-time) B. Burgess Z. Zudans, ACRS Consultant W. Little J. McKinley, ACRS Staf f D. Fischer, ACRS Staff CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY J. Cook F. Buckman D. Sommers T. Sullivan G. Slade K. Drenobl R. Hamm W. Hall D. Budzik B. Harshe H. Slager R. 8. DeWitt J. Alderink R. Polich T. Thiruvengadam J. Zabritski L. Gibson W. Beckman PUBLIC l C. Anderson M. Sinclair
- 8. Stamiris s
]
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
MIDLAND 1 & 2 MAY 20 & 21, 1982 MEETING HIGHLIGHTS, AGREEMENTS, AND REQUESTS: i
- 1. Mr. R. Hernan (NRR/DL) provided the Subcommittee with a brief history of the Midland operating license (OL) review. He discussed each of the 16 remaining open items. Significant items which remain unresolved include:
- a. the potential effects of using natural gas onsite for auxiliary neating of tertiary steam in evaporators,
- b. ongoing soils remedial actions,
- c. the need for a reactor vessel head vent, and
- d. turbine missiles.
Mr. Hernan also summarized the various license conditions which are being imposed on the Applicant. For several of tne open items and license conditions, Dr. Okrent questioned the NRC Staff on now it de-veloped criteria to evaluate / resolve these issues. The Staff, on oc-casion, has relied on engineering judgment as opposed to probabilistic estimates in determining the adequacy of licensee-proposed fixes to saf ety-related issues.
- 2. Mr. W. Little f rom the NRC's Region III Staff described significant construction quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) experiences at tne Midland plant. He also made an assessment of CPCo's construction management. Wnile he indicated that the QA record at Midland has been tielow average as compared to other plants under construction, he ex-pressed general satisfaction witn the current QA program and organiza-tion. He said that recent special inspections have concluded that the quality-related problems at Midland were generally isolated or limited to a specific area and not indicative of major programmatic weaknesses in the implementation of their Quality Assurance program. Dr. Okrent asked tne Staff wnat conditions would prompt tne Staf f to ensure that a more detailed review of tne plant design and construction quality is conducted (e.g. , past poor record related to quality assurance, large population near the site). Dr. Siess questioned the Staff on the pur-pose of a QA program and asked how the Staf f measured the effectiveness of a QA program. In his concluding remarks, Mr. Little said that Region III believes tnat Midland construction management is staf fed with com-petent people and that a program does exist such tnat the plant can be cogleted in accordance with design and regulatory requirements.
Dr. Okrent questioned the Staff on the need for detailed audits to assure that plant quality is adequate. .Mr. Tedesco (NRR/0/DL) said
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
M10 LAND 1 & 2 MAY 20 & 21, 1982 MEETING HIGHLIGHTS, AGREEMENTS. AND REQUESTS (CONT'D):
tnat the Staff is asking all near-term OL applicants to provide the Staf f with an evaluation of why they believe tnat their plant has been designed and built in accordance with their application. He added that this would involve a thorough look at their whole QA program and the experiences that tney have nad during construction. The scope of these design re-verifications, and the need for an independent group to per-form them, nave not yet been deemed a requirement by the Staff. Recog-nizing tnat an independent design re-verification may be required, CPCo is currently naving tneir architect-engineer, Bechtel, perform a design re-verification.
! 3. Dr. Cnarles Anderson, consultant to Midland citizens /intervenors, dis-
- cussed cracks in the Midland Plant diesel generator building and ser-vice water pump structure. He demonstrated, using cardboard boxes, how these structures might nave lost their rigidity. He stated that the buildings do not nave their designed structural integrity because of the cracks which exist in their walls. He said that these cracks, wnicn were caused by differential settlement, are numerous, quite long, and random in orientation. CPCo stated tnat they have evaluated the cracks and have determined that tney nave no ef fect on the integrity of the structure.
- 4. Ms. Barbara Stamiris suggested several documents which tne Comittee should review related to QA/QC at Midland. She indicated that CPCo was slow to correct deficiencies identified in the QA/QC area. Sne also said that the generic implications of QA/QC deficiencies was seldom addressed. Finally, Ms. Stamiris noted that the Staff lacked criteria for evaluating an applicant's QA/AC program. She indicated that this made it particularly difficult for an outside observer to determine the basis for a Staff judgment as to the adequacy of a applicant's QA/QC
- program or activities.
- 5. Ms. Mary Sinclair summarized the written statement she provided to the '
Subcommittee. Sne encouraged the Subcommittee to pursue tne topics identified in tne ACRS letter to the AEC on Midland's CP application.
In addition, sne commented on Midland's final environmental impact statement, evacuation plan, and radioactive waste disposal capabilities.
- 6. Mr. Robert Ham, CPCo, described the ongoing human factors review of l
Midland's control room. He described the preliminary control room design review which was performed and cutlined that review's findings.
Control room ennancements resulting from the preliminary review were discussed. No ennancement was identified to correct the preliminary review deficiency tnat alarms are not prioritized. CPCo stated that i
i tnis deficiency is still under review. Mr. Ham next described the detailed task analysis of control room operator's functions whien is ongoi ng. He related this to other human factors related activities at Midlanc.
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
MIDLAND 1 & 2 MAY 20 & 21, 1982 MEETING HIGHLIGHTS, AGREEMENTS, AND REQUESTS (CONT'D): i
- 7. Mr. Ham described CPCo's auxiliary snutdown panel. Tnis panel provides those controls and indications necessary to maintain the plant in not standby. It also provides some of tne instrumentation and controls needed to bring the plant to cold shutdown.
- 8. Mr. Hamm outlined methods CPCo is using to detect inadequate core cooling.
Tnese metnods include: a subcooling monitoring system, a hot leg level monitoring system, and 24 safety-grade, core-exit thermocouples. The highpoint vents for the Midland design will be off the top of the hot leg (CPCo proposes not to have a head vent). CPCo stated that a void in the reactor coolant system will not result in a loss of natural circula-tion. Tne potential for losing the plant's natural circulation capability was addressed. Methods to reduce the concentration of both condensable and non-condensable gases in the reactor coolant system were discussed.
Dr. Okrent asked the Staff to discuss tne instrumentation required to detect inadequate core cooling at tne ACRS full Comittee meeting.
- 9. Mr. J. Alderink, CPCo, outlined the basic system function of the process steam (evaporator) system and gave an overview of its operation. Tne system interf aces witn Dow were hignlighted (including communication interfaces). Mr. D. Sommers briefly described the radiation monitoring program associated with the evaporator system.
- 10. Tne Subcomittee members and consultants toured the Midland Plant site.
Subcomittee members and consultants divided into several groups. One group took a general tour. Anotner group took an abbreviated general tour and, in addition, saw the chemistry and radiation monitoring faci-lities. A third group took an abbreviated general tour and, in addition, saw the areas / structures requiring soils remedial actions.
- 11. Dr. T. Thiruvengadam, CPCo, presented a brief overview of the criteria to whien tne plant structures and equipment were built. He described the ground acceleration magnitude Midland's OBE and SSE, the design response spectra, damping coef ficients, and CPCo's analysis methodology.
- 12. Mr. R. Holt of Weston Geopnysical Corporation discussed Midland's site-specific response spectra. He outlined two approaches to seismic design, one which results in a standard response spectra and another which results in a site-specific spectra. CPCo has developed a site-specific response spectra. Mr. Holt explained the earthquake magnitude appro-priate to the Midland site, the various distances, the snear wave velocity profile, and the resulting final Midland-specific spectra. His presentation showed how CPCO's use of the Micnigan Basin as a tectonic province affects the seismic site-specific spectra.
.~ .'
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
MIDLAND 1 a z
. MAY 20 & 21,1982 MEETING HIGHLIGHTS, AGREEMENTS, AND REQUESTS (CONT'D):
- 13. H. G. Klimklewicz, a seismologist with Weston Geophysical, presented the results of a seismic hazard analysis (i.e., a determination of the probability of occurrence of the spectra) performed for the Midland Plant. He concluded that the predominant source uf seismic hazard at -
the site is the local occurrence of a moderate earthquake.
- 14. Mr. J. Kimball (NRR/DE/SEB) discussed the seismic portion of the NRC's operating license review for Midland. He highlighted several areas where the Staff and Applicant disagree. These areas of disagreement relate to:
- the use of the Michigan Basin as a tectonic province,
- Tne use of the Parkfield earthquake records to develop the site-specific spectra.
Tne Staff has found tne Applicant's site-specific spectra acceptable in spite of these differences because of conservatisms of larger magnitude that have been incorporated into the spectra.
- 15. Mr. L. Reiter (NRR/DE/GSB) discussed the use of probabilistic estimates to determine seismic hazards. He also discussed some recent work on sensitivity of seismic hazard to variations in input parameters.
Finally, Mr. Reiter outlined the direction that the Staff plans on taking relating to the use of probabilistic estimates. The Staff will use probability to obtain relative as opposed to absolute insights into seismic hazard. Mr. Reiter said that reliance upon probabilistic esti-mates for very long return periods is not the way to alleviate concerns about earthquakes greater than the SSE. He did, however, encourage research to facilitate increasing use of proabilistic estimates.
- 16. Dr. R. Kennedy, President of Structural Mechanics Associates and consulant to CPCo, discussed the seismic reevaluation of the Midland facilities.
He discussed the criteria that are being used in the seismic margin review. He also gave a sample of some of the preliminary results from this review. He explained that the site-specific spectra is being used in the seismic margin review. The review involves both structures and equipment.
- 17. Dr. Thiruvengadam, CPCo, addressed the potential for soil liquefaction at the Midland site. He briefly described the basis for the permanent site dewatering system. The loose granular backfill supporting the diesel generator building and the auxiliary building railroad bay area will not liquefy during an earthquake with a peak ground acceleration of 0.19g provided the ground water level in the backfill is maintained at or below elevation 610. The dewatering system will maintain the water level under these structures at about elevation 595. Total failure of
=
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
MIDLAND 1 & 2 MAY 20 & 21, 1982 4
I MEETING HIGHLIGHTS, AGREEMENTS, AND REQUESTS (CONT'D):
all pumping capacity in the system would still permit an ample 60 days to repair or reinstall the system before tne water reaches elevation 610 in critical areas. At 0.259 there is a 1.1 margin of safety. Tne Staff agrees with the Applicant on the results of the liquefaction analysis.
- 18. In response to a request from Dr. Okrent, the Applicant, NRC Staff, and ACRS consultants each gave their estimates of that earthquake having a return frequency of a tnousand years, ten thousand years, and a hundred thousand years. There were considerable differences in these estimates of low probability earthquakes of a certain size.
- 19. Mr. J. Cook, Vice President of Projects Engineering and Construction for Consumers Power Company, briefly outlined the company's corporate structure and the engineering and construction operation for wnich he is responsible. CPCo has considerable nuclear experience but Dr. Okrent questioned its sufficiency to ensure safe plant operation.
- 20. Mr. R. DeWitt, Vice President of Nuclear Operations, very briefly reviewed CPCo Corporate organization, Nuclear Operations Department organization, Energy Supply organization, and nis nuclear experience /Dackground.
- 21. Mr. F. Buckman, CPCo's Executive Director of Nuclear Activitie briefly described the organization, staffing, and experience of the Nuclear Operations Department. He similarly described the Nuclear Activities Department. Tne composition and functions of the Nuclear Safety Board were presented. Mr. Buckman identified the people on the board and gave tneir experience and qualifications. The Subcommittee discussed hw LERs from otner plants were evaluated by CPCo.
- 22. Mr. G. Slade, CPCo's Assistant Site Manager for the Midland Site Manage-ment Office, discussed the organization of the plant staff, human re-
, sources planning of the plant staff, and the qualification program for the plant. The composition and qualifications of the plant staff were discussed in detail. The control room operator shif t organization was presented to the Subcommittee. It was mentioned that a two-unit simulator would be available for crew training by mid 1983. Typical training programs
' were identified, including those for reactor operators, simulator training, and training to mitigate core damage. The cogosition and qualifications of the training staff were discussed.
- 23. Dr. T. Sullivan, Manager of Safety and Licensing for the Midland project, discussed Midland's ongoing probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). Midland's licensing staff is working with Pickert, Lowe & Gerrick, the Midland '
site organization (including STAS and the operating staf f) to conduct the PRA. The PRA was initiated in December 1980 and is 75% completed.
Final results of the PRA are expected in Janaury 1983. Dr. Sullivan discussed the ob.iectives and untoue features of the Midland PRA.
.._a._ _._-_-____.__-___-.n_.._--._._-__-.-----_.--.-
t PROPOSED
SUMMARY
MIDLAND 1 & 2 MAY 20 & 21, 1982 MEETING HIGHLIGHTS, AGREEMENTS, AND REQUESTS (CONT'0):
- 24. Mr. L. Gibson, CPCo, discussed Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) system re-liability. After some disagreement on the need for a third AFW pump.
CPCo has agreed to install a third pump by the second refueling outage.
The basis for the Staff's probabilistic criteria regarding AFW system unavailability was discussed at length.
- 25. Mr. W. Hall, CPCo, discussed Midland's Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPS). Mr. Hall has been working with INP0 in the development of an Lacrgency Operating Procedures Writer's Guide. He also is chairman of the B&W Owners Group Subcomittee responsible for developing B&W Guide-lines for writing E0Ps [ Abnormal Transient Operating Guidelines (ATOG)].
Mr. Hall discussed ATOG and symptom-oriented procedures. He outlined the methodology used to develop AT0G, the structure of the two-part ATOG product, the methods used to validate AT0G, a plan to implement AT0G, and finally recent and proposed additions to AT0G.
- 26. Mr. B. Harshe, CPCo, described Midland's AC and DC power systems. He identified several features of each system which make them more re-liable than those which exist at other plants and/or which are re-quired by NRC documents.
- 27. Mr. B. Harshe, CPCo, discussed the possibility of a station blackout at Midland. He indicated that while such an event is not part of the design basis, procedures are being developed to cope with it. He said tnat greater tnan two hours (tne design life of the battery) would be available before serious consequences occurred. He outlined procedures wnich would be taken to restore AC power before that two-hour period expired. Mr. Kindinger, CPCo, said that there would conservatively be approximately 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> before a core melt occurred.
- 28. Mr. L. Gibson discussed highpoint vents in Midland's reactor coolant systems. He showed a diagram of and discussed the system configuration.
He said that a bubble in the head would be detectable by plant operators and that it would not interfere in the natural circulation flow path.
The control rod drive mechanism manual vents are not suited for system venting with the system hot and pressurized. Mr. Gibson indicated that the perceived benefit from installing a suitable vent on a control rod drive mechanism flange (after drilling and tapping) would not outweigh the cost.
- 29. Mr. G. Slade, CPCo discussed several unique features of the Midland Plant site which affects the Midland Emergency Plan. He specifically addressed the f act that the plant is located in the state of Michigan, within the city limits of Midland, and edjacent to a major chemical manufacturing f acility. A representative of the Micnigan State Police discussed the state's role in carryino out Midland's Emergency Plan.
The coordination of CPCo, state, locaT and Dow personnel was addressed.
1
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
MIDLAND 1 & 2 MAY 20 & 21,1982 MEETING HIGHLIGHTS, AGREEMENTS, AND REQUESTS (CONT'D): 'l
- 30. Mr. D. Sommers nignlignted several controversial or outstanding environ-mental issues on the Midland project. Issues discussed relating to the :
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) include:
- control of total dissolvea solids in tne Tittabawassee River.
- thermal ef fects of disenargs to tne Tittabawassee River, and ,
e
- tne assimilative capacity for ammonia in the river.
Issues discussed relating to the Draf t Environmental Statement (DES) include:
- tne potential for fogging and icing, and
- the potential for increased deatn due to disease ,
and starvation of water fowl in the cooling pond.
CPCo indicated tnat all of tnese issues should be resolved witnout :
difficulty.
- 31. Mr. D. Sommers, CPCo, discussed the potential for ground water contam-ination at the Midland site. He gave several reasons why he felt that t
the potential for ground water contamination at Midland was minimal. l
- 32. Mr. W. Beckman, CPCo, briefly outlined the Midland Plant Radiation
. Safety Program. He mentioned the corporate guidance that has gone into tne development of the Midland Program. His discussion indicated
.tnat a strong ALARA program is in place at Midland. The ALARA Program includes:
- An ALARA coordinator wno reports to the Radiation Protection Manager.
- Annual ALARA goals.
- A $5000 cost attacned to eacn occupational man-rem projer.ted to be consumed to install new equipment or modify the plant, ,
- A radiation exposure tracking system, and
- Pre-and Post-activity ALARA reviews for jobs involving personnel exposure.
Mr. Beckman highlignted Midland's normal dose projection and accident dose assessment methods.
m
, ..s.
3 PROPOSED
SUMMARY
MIDLAND 1 & 2 MAY 20 & 21,1982 FUTURE MEETINGS:
The ACRS Subcommittee on Midland Plant Units 1 & 2 will nave a meeting on Wednesday, June 2,1982, commencing at 4:00 p.m., to discuss those topics on this meeting's tentative schedule that were not discussed.
t O
.__ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ -