ML20140H052

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Proposed Summary of ACRS Subcommittee on Midland 820602 Meeting Review of Application for Ol,For Review & Comment.Corrections & Additions Will Be Included in Minutes of Meeting
ML20140H052
Person / Time
Site: Midland, 05000000
Issue date: 08/11/1982
From: Fischer D
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To: Okrent D
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Shared Package
ML19255C661 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-602 NUDOCS 8510080420
Download: ML20140H052 (5)
v • d • e


Text

-

lYTL C J kf 9

(

f.

+

August 11,1982 MLI)0 hah 00M FOR:

D. UArent, Cnain.an, ACRS Subconnittee on Midland Plant Units 1 6 2 FHon:

u. tisenor, Staf f Engineer hubJLLT:

ACdd Sublu:VillTLt. UN MIDLAltu PLAf4T UNil51 & 2 - Justl 2,1982 WASdliab10!i, O.C.

I nave prepared tne attacned es eting sustury f or your review. Copfes are being distributed to the other ACRS menders and Subconnittee consultants for their inf on ation and coi,=nt.

Correctims and additions will be included in tne Minutes of the nnecting.

Attacn:.ent :

M stated cc: ACR$ Hencers Acks Tecnnical Statf L. Epler, ACx5 Consultant N

W. Lipinski, A(.kS Consultant J. usteroerg, ACKS Consultant E. Case, fMit E. buodain, hkR

k. UeVoung, IL
k. Minuque, KES U. Lisennut, fikk R. Vollr.er, hdk J. Keppler,f4HR T. hovak, NKk Fo/A 4 w o2-L. Adensa.n hRk D. Hood, hdR gi g

R. Hernan, fikk J. Knisnt, liRn Fil.E: MIDLAND PLANT UNIT 1 & 2 0510000420 050730 PDH FOIA IIN UNNE R O S-60_2_P DR

.........A.f.M........

...QEl.S.G!tER/.hgi..........a.11. 0?

orrice s eva m >

oaf )

OFFiClAL RECORD COPY u o m i-m m Nac roau m oo e sacu ono

(

i I

PROPOSED

SUMMARY

l' OF THE JUNE 2,1982 MEETING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 8 2 PURPOSE:

The purpose of the meeting was to review the application of Consumers Power Company for a license to operate the Midland Plant Units 18 2.

l PRINCIPAL ATTENDEES:

ACRS Consumers Power Comp,ang D. Okrent, Chairman J. Cook

+

W. Mathis, ACRS Member T. Sullivan l

D. Moeller, ACRS Member D. Budzik E. Epler, ACRS Consultant K. Drehobl W. Lipinski, ACRS Consultant

8. Harshe D. Fischer, Designatsed Fed. Empi.

R. Hamm i

J. McKinley, ACRS Staff J. Zabritski L. Gibson NRC Staff H. Slager l

R. Tedesco R. Polich E. Adensam J. Pastor D. Hood J. Keninger R. Defayette G. Slade T. Dunning P. Jacobsen R. Eberly B. Margulio W. Hazelton R. Berry W. Jenson J. Mazetis Bechtel C. D. Sellers T. Ballweg M. Pratt Babcock & Wilcox 4

J. Taylor

(

MEETING HIGHLIGHTS, AGREEMENTS, AND REQUESTS 1.

The NRC Staff indicated that the list of open itens and ifcensing conditions had not changed since the May 20-21,1982 Midland Plant Subcommittee meeting.

MIOLAND

SUMMARY

t' 2.

The Subcommittee members and consultants questioned the NRC Staff and Applicant on items in the operating license Safety Evaluation Report (OLSER).

Dr. Okrent asked the Staff to discuss the question of natural circu-a.

lation during a small break LOCA.

The Staff was not prepared to address this item.

b.

In response to a question by Dr. Okrent, the Staff indicated there was no problem with regard to diesel generator accessibility subsequent to the probable maximum flood (PMF).

Dr. Moeller asked what impact flooding might have on the evacuation of c.

the Dow Chemical plant and on Midland's Emergency Plan. The Applicant said that the chemical plant would have to be shutdown and evacuated long before the power plant would be affected (since there is a signi-ficant dif ference in the elevation of the plants).

d.

When questioned about turbine missile open item resolution, the Staff referred Dr. Okrent to the discussion of turbine missiles contained in "NRC Staf f Responses To Questions By The ACRS Subcommittee During Meeting Of May 20-21, 1982 On Midland, Units 1 And 2."

The Staff confirmed that credit cannot be taken for containment pressure c.

when computing a pump's available net positive suction head (NPSH).

. f.

While the Staff is concerned about the configuration of a plant's con-tainment isolation system, it has no criteria regarding containment isolation reliability.

Midland's containment purge and vent valves are designed to operate g.

under the containment's design differential pressure of 60 psi.

The Applicant's failure analysis of its Feed Only Good Generators (FOGG) h.

System employs the single failure criterion.

The Subcommittee reviewed and discussed the NRC Staff's written response 3.

to concerns expressed in previous ACRS reports on Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.

l m

i e

MIDLAND

SUMMARY

4.

Mr. 8. Harshe, CPCo. described Midland's program for reducing the potential for common cause failures. He defined common cause failures as systems interactions.

He described three types of systems interactions (ie., spatial, functional, and human) and explained how CPCo is methodically searching for each type. The scope of Midland's program includes both safety-grade / safety grade and nonsafety-grade / safety-grade types of interactions.

Mr. Harshe identified several plant modtfications which have been made as a result of CPCO's search for adverse systems interactions.

5.

Mr. R. Hamm, CPC0, outlined the functions, interfaces, and improve-ments that have been made in Midland's integrated control system (105).

He compared Midland's ICS with the standard 88W ICS. Mr.

Hamm described CPCo's extensive efforts 'to preclude loss of power to both the ICS and the non-nuclear instrumentation (NN!).

CPCo now has a non-safety grade loss of ICS/NNI power alarm in the control room.

He mentioned evaluations of the ICS, NNI, and EvaporatorSteamDemandDevelopment(ESDD)thatareongoing.

These evaluations will essentially constitute a systems interaction study relative to the ICS.

6.

Mr. J. Zabritski, CPCo, discussed the seismic and environment qualiff-cation of equipment important to plant safety. He mentioned the organizations that are participating in Midland's equipment quali-fication programs.

He highlighted the elements of the equipment environmental qualification program and provided a status of the environment qualification review.

Similarly, Mr. Zabritski discussed the elements and status of Midland's program to seismically qualify equipment.

7.

Mr. L. Gibson, CPCo, described the various means of rer.oving re-actor decay heat at Midland following a shutdown or reactor trip. He i

explained simplified system diagrams of the auxiliary feedwater (AFW) t and decay heat renoval (OHR) systems. He indicated that each loop of the DHR system can handle the system's design heat load. He also said that one high pressure coolant injection pump operating at the power operated relief valve setpoint is capable of removing the primary i

l system's decay heat.

Mr. H. Slager, CPCo, outlined the bolting experiences at the Midland 8.

site. He listed four groups of low-alloy quenched and tempered bolts alch have failed or been found deficient.

The*,e bolts include:

Unit I reactor vessel anchor bolts, pipe whip restraint bolts, steam generator anchor bolts, and reactor coolant pump snubber anchor bolts.

"he failure mechanism and corrective actions for the reactor vessel l

i anchor bolt problem were discussed in detail. Mr. Slager described The Staff an ongoing low-alloy quenened and tempered bolt survey.

l acknowledged the adequacy of CPCo's program to correct tiotting def t-i ciencies.

5,l*.

MIDLAND

SUMMARY

9.

Mr. R. Polich, CPCo, summarized Midland's fire protection program. He indicated that the open item related to fire protection would soon be resolved.

The potential for flooding and wetting of critical com-ponents was discussed.

Mr. Polich highlighted fire damper design and operation (fire dampers are not gas-tight). Midland's ability to achieve and maintain hot shutdown in the event of a fire was mentioned.

10. Mr. B. Harshe, CPCo, discussed Midland's control room habitability and specific hazards existing at the Midland plant that could affect control room habitability. He explained how data was col-lected about potential hazards in order to establish the design basis for the plant and to identify potential worst case situations.

A number of these situations were analyzed in detail. Based on these analyses. CPCo has or will be instituting a number of plant pro-tective features.

Plant protective features incorporate: telephone and radio communications with the 00W Chemical and Dow Corning plants, a hazardous gas monitoring system which can automatically isolate the control room, numerous control room design features, and self-contained breathing apparatus in the control room for plant operators.

Mr. Harshe also outlined the special habitability features of the various emergency response facilities at Midland. Dr. Hoeller ques-tioned CPCo on how it would assure itself of the adequacy of the control room heating and ventilation systems.

11. The Subcommittee discussed with the NRC Staff, the Applicant, and their consultants responses to questions raised by the ACRS Subcom-mittee on Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 during its May 20-21, 1982 Subcommittee meeting.

The Staff provided the Subcommittee with written "NRC Staff Responses To Questions By The ACRS Subcommittee During Meeting Of May 20-21,1982 On Midland Plant, Units 1 And 2."

In general, the Subcommittee was satisfied with the Staff's responses. Dr. Okrent questioned the Staff on the cri-teria it is using to resolve the turbine missile open item.

The Staff said that it was awaiting receipt of a GE report, which the Applicant is taking credit for, and that uses a turbine missile generation probability on the order of ten to the minus nine per year. The Staff, which used to assume that the probability of generating the missile was ten to the minus four per year, is now taking a close look at missile generation probabilities when it reviews an Applicant's calculations. The Staff is still using a damage criterion of ten to the minus seven per year.

The Applicant indicated that the two off site power supply lines could not interfere with each other if one of the supporting towers was to fall over.

In response to a request by Dr. Moeller, the Applicant described those systems The Applicant's at Midland which are capable of being drained and/or flushed.

criteria for draining and flushing radioactive systems fits into its compre.

hensive program to control occupational exposure.

12.

The Subcommittee chairman outlined some of the topics for discussion at the June 4,1982 ACRS full Committee meeting.

13.

The meeting went into closed session to discuss Midland's plant security program and systems.

-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20140H052&oldid=4190517"