ML20148S607
| ML20148S607 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1978 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812040009 | |
| Download: ML20148S607 (213) | |
Text
. - .- _. . . _- . _ .
'i Q NUCLE AR REGUL ATO RY COMMISSION-1 o NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS IN THE MATTER OF:
I ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER PLANT i
e e
O . .
Plac e -- Florence , Kentucky Date - Friday, 17 November 1978 Pages 1-213 ,
f T.4.onen.:
O ~~"~
ACE ?EDERAL REPORTERS,INC. !
Official Repor:ers Ur 7812C4CCOf .t.u Nor:s Cecitei 3,r..,
Wcshingen. D.C. 20001 N ATICNWIDE CCVERAGE . DAILY g -+w.wie-
I -
. PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE ,
2 UNITED S'TATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S 3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON' REACTOR. SAFEGUARDS 4 .- .
. 5 Friday,.17 November 1978 ;
D 6 The contents of this stenographic transcript of the 7 proceedings of the United States Nuclear Regulatory
. 8 Commission's Advisory Committee.on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
i 9 as , reported herein, is an uncorrected record of the discussions 10 recorded at the meeting held on the above date. ,
II No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at this 12 meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or inaccuracies
/ '
13 of statement or data contained in this transcript.
14 15 .
,. 16 .
4 17 18' 19 20 . .
c 21 .
22 O 23 24 3 red wponus, Inc. -
25 ,
t
, -, y --p.-,- --, ,- w, - -- y. y--..- ,.- ,-..--,-- - . . -
CR1030 1- 1 l
WEL/Wel 1 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS '
2 ,,
, ,3 t
3 4
O ,
i t
6 ZIMMER SUBCOMMITTEE -
7 MEETING 8'
9 10 Holiday Inn 11 8050 Highway 42 Florence, Kentucky 41094 12 Friday, 17 November 1978 ,
13 l 14 The Subcommittee meeting was convened at'.8:30 a.m. ,
)
15 DEFORE:
16 DR. MYER BENDER, Subcommittee Chairman.
17 DR. MILTON PLESSET, ACRS Member.
l 18 PRESENT:
19 DR. ZUDANS, DR. CATTON, MR. LIPINSKI and MR. DITTO, Consultants to the ACRS Subcommittee.
20 MR. I. PELTIER, MR. R. J. BOSNAK, MR. S. ISRAEL, i 21 MR. R. SCHOLL, MR. J. M. KOVACS, and DR. W. BUTLER, on behalf of the NRC Staff.
22 MR. J. D. FLYNN, MR. E. A. BORGMAN, MR. H. C.
23 BRINKMAN, MR. J. R. SCHOTT, MR. W. W. SCIIWIERS ,
MR. H. E. CRAIL, on behalf of the Applicant.
- l. 24 p 25 V
cAce- 9edera( cRepoilczs, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STftEET W A',HINGTO N, D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
.- . , _ . . . . . .-_..J
2 I
SEEEEEEE 2
SUBJECT:
PAGE:
'}
3 Opening Statement by Subcommi'ttee Chairman 4 4 Introduction, Organizational and Operational
's, Plans for the Facility.
v/
17 5
Plant Description with Emphasis on Mark II 6 Containment Features. 23 7 Training Programs, Emergency Planning and Quality Assurance and Control Programs. 58 8
Industrial Security Discussions. (OPEN) 75 9
Quality Assurance / Quality Control Experience to for the Zimner Plant. 80 11 Discussion of Outstanding Issues and NRC Staff Conclusion (Excluding Mark II 12 Containment in Item VI) (NRC Staff.) 100 13 Applicant Response to Staff discussion of '
Outstanding Issues and NRC Staff y) 14 Conclusion. (Applicant.) 123 15 Status of Actions on ACRS Generic Items: (NRC Staff) 16 Stress corrosion cracking. 183 17 ATUS 185 18 Loss of on-site and off-site alternating current / reliability of direct current 19 power systems. 186 20 Instruments to follow the course of the accident. 192 21 l Recirculation pump overspeed during a LOCA. 195 22 1 Loose parts monitoring. 199 ew 23 c) Vibration monitoring. 199 24 Status of Actions on ACRS Generic Items: (Applicant)
,\ 26
) Stress Corrosion Cracking. 204 ,
cAce- 9edera{ cReputers, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET WAS HINCTO N, D.C. 2000t aw w.nOO l
3 l 1
SUBJECT:
PAGE:
2 ATWS 204
( ) , Loss of on-site and off-site alternating
, current / reliability of direct current p.s s 4 power systems. 206 5 Instruments to follow the course of the )
accident. 206 6
Recirculation pump overspeed during a LOCA. 208 7
Loose parts monitoring and vibration monitoring. 209 8
9 10 11 12 13
)
__.- ja 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (u.-)
24
, I ') 25 u/
cAcc- 9edera{ cRepoticu, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W AS HINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
4 I PEggggglggE 2 CHAIRMAN DENDER: This meeting will now come to
()
' 3' order.
4 This is a meeting of the Advisory Committee on O 5 Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear 6 Power Station, Unit 1.
7 I am Myer Bender, Subcommittee Chairman.
8 The other ACRS Member is Dr. Milton Plesset, on 9 my left.
10 In addition to that we have a number of ACRS 11 Consultants: Dr. Catton, Dr. Zudans, Mr. Lipinski and 12 Mr. Ditto.
13 On my right, the Designated Federal Employee is
() 14 Dr. Richard Savio. Next to him is Dr. Thomas Eaton, who 15 is a member of our Fellowship Program, and Mr. Duraiswamy, 16 who is another member of the ACRS Staff.
17 Mr. Duraiswamy and Dr. Savio will be taking care is of the administrative parts of this meeting, so if any of to you have difficulties please consult with them.
20 The rules for participation in today's meeting 21 have been announced as part of the notice of this meeting 22 previously published in the Federal Register on Friday, 23 October 20, 1978, Wednesday, November 1, 1978 and Thursday,
)
24 November 9, 1978 25 The meeting is being conducted in accordance with cAce 9edera{ cAeporters, .One.
444 NOHTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
.- 5 1 the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 2 the Government in the Sunshine-Act. The purpose of the 3 meeting is to review the application of the Cincinnati Gas 4 & Electric Company for a license to operate the Wm. II. Zimmer 5 Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.
6 A transcript of this meeting is being kept and 7 Will be made available as stated in the Federal Register g Notice. It is requested that each speaker first identify g himself or herself and speak with sufficient clarity and 39 volume so that he or she can be readily heard.
ij We have received no written comments from members 12 f the public, and we have received no requests to make 13 oral statements from members of the public at,this meeting G up to now.
O 34 l l
15 Consequently, we will devote the main time 16 the meeting to an agenda which, hopefully, has been l
37 available to the participants.
18 Our plan.is to hear presentations from the jg Regulatory Staff first, and then to hear from the Applicant's 20 representatives concerning the_ status of the plant and the 21 plans for operational use.
22 As I understand it, Mr. Peltier will be speaking 23 f r the Staff. Where is he? I O 24 MR. PELTIER: Right here.
25 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Good morning. And Mr. Flynn I O -
J c0cc. 9edera[ cAcpotlets, .Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STRECT 1 W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
6 I will be speaking for the Applicant.
2 Good morning, Mr. Flynn. l
(')
~
3 Let me ask whether everybody can hear me? Is u/
4 there any problem?
'~
5 If there's anyone who can't hear me, please raise 6' his hand. 1 7 This room 10 a little crowded, obviously, and 8 it may be a bit uncomfortable for people in moving in and 9 out. We'll try to arrange for reasonable breaks between 10 presentations, but recognizing the frailty of the human 11 animal, anybody who feels he needs to get up and get out, 12 just get up. Don't worry too much about whether we're 13 interrupted. -
n
(_) 14 The first portion of this meeting was planned 15 as an executive session, and I will begin.by soliciting 16 my colleague to determine whether he has anything he would 17 like to suggest about the conduct of this meeting?
18 DR. PLESSET: No, Mr. Chairman. I have a few 19 questions of the Staff, but they'll come up later.
20 CIIAIRMAN DENDER: Very good.
21 Let me ask the Consultants. I'll start at the 22 far end. Steve, do you have anything that you want to say?
/~T 23 MR. DITTO: No.
(/
24 MR. LIPINSKI: Nothing, specifically.
(~) 25 DR. ZUDANS: Later.
LJ cAce-]cdcra{ cAcpotieu, Snc.
444 N OMTH C APITOL. STR EET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
7 .
1 1
DR. CATTON: I can wait.
2- Cl! AIRMAN BENDER: Very good.
() 3 Under the circumstances, there's no sense in 4 losing valuable time, so I suggest that we move right into O. 5 the agenda of the meeting.
6 Mr. Peltier, would you like to begin by. outlining 7 your issues?
8 MR. PELTIER: I'm Irv Peltier, with the Nuclear 9 Regulatory Commission Staff, Licensing Project Manager for 10 Zimmer.
11 Mr. Chairman, Committee Members:
- 12. I'll try to be very brief during my early 13 presentation here, and hopefully when we get.further into
() ja the agenda we can go into some of the topics that I'll 15 mention just briefly now in greater detail.
16 In the way of background, the Zimmer application 17 was tendered in May of 1975. The Staff's acceptance review
! 18 delayed docketing the final safety analysis report until l 19 September of 1975.
i 20 Zinmer is the first BWR-5 with the Mark II con-21 tainment to be reviewed by the Staff at the final design 22 stage. .There were a number of systems which the Staff had 23 not reviewed in detail on previous applications.
[}
24 For example, the Mark II containment concept,
- p. 25 the flow control valve and recirculation control system, i i .
cAce 9eclera( cAcjwricu, .One.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHJNOTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
8 1 the reactor manual control system'with self-monitoring 2 multiplex information transfer of solid state circuitry.
3 The major area of the comprehensive review was
'{})
4 the pool dynamic load resulting from LOCA and safety rel.ief
\"' /
5 valve discharge.
6 By January of 1977 Staff's scheduled review had 7 been completed to the extent that 68 issues had been 8 identified, and the Applicant was informed of those issues 9 at that time.
10 Since that time, a concerted effort by the Staff 11 and the Applicant reduced the number of issues to 17.
12 The remaining issues fall into what I've put 13 into two categories. -
.) 14 The first category contains those issues for 15 which the Staff has reached a position and is still in the 10 process of reviewing the Applicant's responses to those 17 positions.
18 The second category contains those issues for 19 which additional information is required before the Staff 20 can reach its final position.
21 (Slide.)
22 Now, I'll show these in Vugraph form here very
(^3 23 cryptically, and we can discuss this later on or now, as tj 24 you desire, r^3 25 These are the issues which I feel the Staff has n.)
l c/lce- 9eclcraf cReporters, Soc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON D C. 20000 (202) 347 3700 1
9 1 a position on. We do need some additional information in 2 order to close the issues out.
x 3 Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to talk about each r
x-
)
4 one of these later on in the agenda --
(_) 5 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Before you do anything we need a to get that thing so it focuses. It doesn't quite do what 7 it's supposed to do. Why don't you just take a minute and 8 see if we can get it.to work. I think the screen is not 9 normal to the projector.
10 (Pause.)
11 MR. PELTIER: I can read them off.
12 (Slide.)
13 The first one is the dowatering of. compacted
) 14 backfill.
Second is the reactor vessel supports.
~
15 16 Preservice and inservice inspection program.
17 Effects of recirculation pump trip in over I
18 pressurization analyses.
19 Protection of motor / generator sets in the reactor i i
20 scram system. i 21 Physical separation and electrical isolation.
22 Fire protection.
,7 ,
23 Plant and support staffing.
t
, t 24 And industrial security. l 7, 25 (Slide.) i b
c0ce- LTedera( cRepders, $nc. i 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D C. 20001 (2.02) 347 3700
10 1 on the issues that fall in the second category, 2 . where the Staff has not reached a final position yet and needs more information in order to do so:
3 4 ~ Design for pool dynamic loads.
m 5 Seismic qualification'of mechanical and electrical 6- equipment.
7 Conservatism in transient analyses.
8 Low pressure coolant injection diversion effects 9 on ECCS and long-term cooling.
10 Pool dynamic loads.and load combinations.
ji All other instrumentation required for safety.
12 And preoperational and startup test program.
13 (Slide.) ,
] y Now, the Staff also considers what we call the 15 ACRS generic concerns, and what I have done here is I have 16 listed the ACRS generic concerns and matched them up with 17 our task action plan and the status of these in the SER.
18 It takes a couple of Vugraphs to get them all on. I'll 39 just show them now and we can come back to them later if 20 you wish to discuss any of them.
21 In the left-hand column we have the designation 22 of the ACRS generic concern. We have in the middle column 23 the task action plan, Staff's task action plan, which g
V 24 embodies the scope of the ACRS concern. In the right-hand 25 column we have the SER status of that concern. In many cAcc-]cdeta{ cReporten, $nc 444 NONTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
-- - - .=. . . . . , . - .
11 1' cases we reference our May 4 statun. report to the Committee 2 on these items. -And I understand that sometime in December 3 the Staff is going to update that status for the Committec 4 in a meeting in Washington.
5 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: ' Is that all2 you plan,to say
'6 about the generic items with respect to this application?
7 MR. PELTIER: I intend to touch.on those which 8 you have indicated in the agenda --
g CHAIRMAN BENDER: All-right, fine.
10 MR. PELTIER: Just to complete the list here - -
33 (Slide.)
12 -- that's what the total list looks like, including the 13 non-applicable ones. And then I have taken all the.non-O 14 app i ab e nes ut and put them on one Vugraph so it will 15 be a little more convenient when we go back to this ' topic.
16 (Slide.)
17 CIIAIRMAN DENDER: What do we~know about the 18 resolution dates for all these matters?
19 MR. PELTIER: I'm'norry, I didn't hear the 20 question?
21 CI! AIRMAN DENDER: 'What do we know about the' 22 resolution time for all these matters?
23 MR. PELTIER: The resolution time?
O CilAIRMAN DENDER: Yes.
24 25 MR. PELTIER: I understand that we are going to O
c//ce 9eclcta[ cReportets, Snc.
444 NONTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
12 I
update our status to you people in Washington in December.
2 And at that time I think there will be some revision of the L ,) completion dates on the task action plans. I'm sure some 4
,- of them are slipping.
I)-
5 CHAIRMAN BENDER: That.k you.
6 MR. PELTIER: I'd like to apologize for the draft 7
SER. It just was not possible to get a complete product 8 before this site visit and meeting. So we had to issue the 9 draft and, as with all drafts, there are a number of topos, 10 mistakes, and because of the overlapping between review 11 groups there are also some inconsistencies in the draft.
12 I hope that it hasn't been too inconvenient.
13 In the way of additional topics, Id just like Q 14
'u/ to point out that the Staff has completed its review of the 15 design for protection of tornado missiles and finds it 16 acceptable. Our safety evaluation on that topic is not in 17 the SUR draft.
18 Also, the Staff is concerned about the qualifica-19 tion of equipment for radiation exposure. We're looking at 20 this generically for DNR plants, but since the qualification 21 involves the calculation of exposure for 40 years of 22 operation, plus a LOCA, we don't feel the resolution is of 23 immediate concern. However, we are looking at that, and n)
L-24 that topic was not included in the list of issues.
25 Unless there are any questions, I'll stop here
(~ :)
c0ce- 9edera( cReportcu, .Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
i 13
-1 and we can take up these in more detail later.
2 DR. CATTON: I have a couple of questions, and 3 I'd like'to raise them now to be sure that maybe you would 4 touch on them later.
5- MR. PELTIER: Certainly.
6 DR. CATTON: As you know, during the reactivity 7 insertion accident at PDF recently that found that the pin a came apart at 240 calories per gram of energy. Is that'an.
9 appropriate issue?
10 MR. PELTIER: Yes.
11 DR. CATTON: And I noticed in reading the 12 acquisition withdrawal sequence report of G.E., that the 13 worst case calculations showed an addition of 232 calories 1
O '4 ver urem- ^aa te eeome to me enee's e die 01ose- e ente 15 being considered?
i 10 I'll just go through these, and wherever they're 17 appropriate you can address them.
18 Secondly, on the collet retainer tube, I haven't 19 been able to find anywhere what's going to be done about 20 the thermal stress problem, if anything. Or is it needed?
21 This is the stress cracking.
22 On fuel bundle lift, I tried to put that
{
23 together several times, and I can't seem to.get it straight O 24 just how the problem is eliminated. This is during the 25 LOCA, when you get a little bit more expansion in the fuel O .
cAce 9cdcra( cReportets, $nc.
444 NOMTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
14 1
bundle boxes and they're pinching on the cruciform. I 2 don't know where they get the force between the cruciform 3 and the box.
4 Then a couple of things that came up yesterday 5 on the tour, the control rod drive tubes are packed very 0 closely together on either one side or the other of the 7 shield wall, and between the drive tubes and the shield wall 8 is the recirc pipe. And I'm wondering if any consideration 9 is given to breaking of the recirc pipe close to the tubes.
10 And if so, what damages can result?
11 Finally, while down in the wet well, the vent 12 pipes are 36 feet long and there is no support at their 13 ends. That means that if the lateral loads are at all
, 14 high you're going to get some rather severe stresses at the 15 top. I have not seen any -- maybe I've just missed it --
16 anything that discusses what the peak loads are going to 17 be that allows you to eliminate the supports.
18 Thank you.
19 DR. PLESSET: You say you have a position on the 20 reactor vessel supports, you have adopted a position?
21 MR. PELTIER: Yes.
22 DR. PLESSET: What is that position?
CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Will it be discussed today p)
L 23 24 later on?
25 MR. PELTIER: Oh, yes.
v' c0cc-]ccl era { cRepozlets, Onc.
444 NONTH C APtTOL STREET W A S HI N GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
15 i
1- DR. PLESSET: Oh, okay.
2 One minor point,-maybe you can'tell us briefly, [
() .
3 I understand that the Staff is requiring the downcomer ends 4 to be modified. There's a flare there, and to have-that r
(
5 cut off by the Applicant. Am I correct in that? That's j 6' what-I.was told yesterday. :
7 MR. PELTIER: I heard that for the first time f
8' yesterday, myself. ,
DR. PLESSET: I wondered why that is. I 9
10 MR. BRINKMAM: Would you like me to volunteer?
11 DR. PLESSET: Sure.
12 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Please do. ;
13 MR. BRINKMAN: My name is Herb Brinkman, the 14 principal mechanical engineer with Cincinnati Gas & Electric.
15 The question concerns the flanges at the end of f 16 the downcomer pipes?
17 DR. PLESSET: Right.
18 MR. BRINKMAN: We were requested to remove those
. i 19 flanges, and uc committed to do so, because.during the pool-20 swell 'asting the test facility did not have flanges at the 21 ends of their pipes. And the idea was to make the plant l 22 as ;nuch -like the test facility as possible.
23 DR. PLESSET: So that was requested by you of the
({}
24 Staff?
25 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir.
c9ce. 9edera{ cAepotters, .Onc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET WASHIN GTON. D.C. EMol (202) 347 3700
16 1
DR. PLESSET: So my question is directed to the 2 .
l S.taff. Why did.they'ask that? l
({J MR. BRINKMAN:' I'm sorry. )
4 1 CHAIRMAN BENDER: No,'no, we appreciate your l
() 5 offering that. ,l 6-M
. R. PELTIER: I think the time to raise that question would be when Mr. Butler.is here from the Staff, 8
who will address pool dynamics.
9 DR.-PLESSET: Okay. You can be. thinking about it 10 in the interim. i II CHAIRMAN BENDER: The point we're trying to make 12 is we don't want to be capricious about it, and if there's 13 a good reason'for taking them off, fine.' *
() 14 DR. PLESSET: If there isn't, maybe they shouldn't I 15 be taken off. That's really the question.
P 16 CHAIRMAN BENDER: We've got a lot of reasons for 17 imposing extra costs on the Applicant, and vo'd just as soon
'8 not force him unnecessarily.
10 But I'm sure the Staff'is aware of that. Go 20 ahead.
21 MR. PELTIER: Mr. Butler will be here this after-22 noon. I hope he can answer that question.
L 23 Well, if thera are no more questions of me, then 24 I will pass until --
25 CHAIRMAN BENDER:- All right, if there are no more cAce 9edera( cReporters, Dnc. .
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
_ . . , - . . . . _ . . . _ , - , ~ , _ _ - . . , . -_ . . - - _ _ . _ - - _ _ - _
17 1 questions of Mr. Peltier why don't we go ahead with the 2 presentation of the Applicant.
( 3 Mr. Flynn?
j3 4 MR. FLYNN: Yes, sir.
V 5 To address the first-topic of " Introduction, 6 Organizational and Operational Plans for the Facility,"
7 with respect to the organization and Applicant's schedule 8 for completion of construction, we will have Mr. Earl 9 Borgman, Vice President of Engineering Services and Electric 10 Production, address these topics.
11 MR. BORGMAN: Mr. Chairman, Committee Members:
12 My name i.s Earl Borgman. I'm Vice President of 13 Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company responsible for Engineer- <
14 ing Services and Electric Production.
15 I'd like to briefly review our organization, 5 10 particularly since there have been some-changes as of r 17 ' September 1.
18 (Slide.)
19 This particular slide is not too good, but I 20 think I can describe it to you.
21 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: That looks like some of the l l
22 partslof the Zimmer plant we walked through yeste'rday.
() 23 (Laughter.)
1 24 M R'. BORGMAN: That seems to be the story of the ;
25 project.
cNcc-]cdcral cAcyozicu, One. l 444 NOftTH C APITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. ' 20 Col (202) 347 3700
18 1 Anyway, the way we're set up, this is the 2 President of the Company, and I'm here, Vice President of
()' .
3 Engineering Services and Electric Production.-
4 As of the first of September the manager of the O 5 Electric Production Department, as well as the manager of 6 the General Engineering Department, also report to me.
7 We broke up the functions of the General Engineer-8 ing Department into three parts effective September 1. We 9 have a manager of construction. That's Mr. Culver, who is 10 permanently at the Zimmer site. A manager of nuclear fuel' 11 and' advanced engineering projects. We have Mr. Flynn as 12 manager of licensing and environmental affairs. And we have 13 a manager of general engineering. -
() 14 The manager of general engineering has various 15 disciplines reporting to him. The principal structural 16 engineer, the principal mechanical engineer for nuclear 17 projects -- that's Mr. Brinkman. We also have a principal 18 mechanical engineer for fossil projects. We have a chief 19 draftsman. We have an administrator. And we have a 20 principal electrical engineer.
21 This i's the corporate engineering support who )
22 will be involved in supporting the Zimmer project.
{) 23 We have a manager of production, station 24 superintendent and, of course, the station staff.
25 That is sort of a capsule review of our 1
cAce 9edeta[ c)?cporters, Snc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET WASHINGTON. O.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
19 l organization.
2 Are there any questions on the o:ganization?
O- ' '
1 ehinh you 11 find te sticheir differene than 4
what we had before, because up to September 1 the manager O- s of production was reporting right to the President. Now the 6
engineering and production is, consolidated under me for 7
better coordination.
8 Cl! AIRMAN BENDER: The operating superintendent 8-of the plant then reports directly to you?
10 MR. BORGMAN: No, the operating superintendent 11 reports to Mr. Salay, who is manager of electric production,.
12 who, in turn, reports'to'me. -
13 CHAIRMAN DENDER: I'see. This is'the only !
14 nucicar installation you've got here, isn't it?
15 MR. BORGMAN: This is our first nuclear'installa- I 10 tion, yes, sir, that's correct. 'f i 17 CHAIRMAN DENDER: That's enough for now. Thank 18 you.
18 MR. BORGMAN: Okay.
20 As far as numbers go, our engineering department 21 has approximately 150 people. About: half of that number, 22 about 75, are graduate engineers.
23 The Zimmer staff currently is at about 117 people 24 and almost fully staffed at this point in time.
25 We also get a lot of support from Sargent & Lundy, cflce 9edeza{ cReposten, $nc. !
444 NORTH CAPITOL STRCET WA SHINGTON. D.C. 20001 l (202) 347 3700 }
20 1 who are our AE and have been since tho turn of the century, 2 and they're only a few hours away from the site, in Chicago. q
("3 3 .. I think that pretty _well gives you a capsule tg
- 4 review of our organization.
5 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Ilow many people on the operating 6 staff have nuclear power plant experience?
7 MR. BORGMAN: Jim, can you answer that? Ilow g many people on the staff have actual nuclear operating g experience?
10 MR. SCIIOTT: If you define actual nuclear 33 experience as that accumulated in the Navy as well, we have 12 on our senior staff our operating engineer is a former 33 Navy officer. Our health physics supervisor.is a former O i< """' "* ' "**" """"" "*" "* " "- "" """ **' """*"* "
g is a former Navy officer.
16 An e n OW operadng Foup, de hody 37 personnel that actually do the nanipulation of controls, 18 we have about seven operators who are former Navy enlisted 39 personnel.
20 Cl! AIRMAN BENDER: With submarine experience?
21 MR. SCI!OTT: Yes, sir, primarily. There are a 22 few surface ship people.
e 23 And then in our maintenance department, we have O-24 m ybe five machinist mate types.
25 Then in our rad chem group, radiation protection c0ce 9edera{ cRepozicts, .Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S HI N GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
l 21 1 chemistry, there are approximately five-individuals that 2 have the ELT type experience.
C 3 And then in our instrument group we have only one I
4 .former Navy man. l O 5. C11 AIRMAN BENDER: Are there any people with
.I 6 boiling water reactor experience in that group? I i
7- MR. SCHOTT: Not actual experience, but all of a the licensed personnel -- which I'll probably discuss in a 9 few minutes -- have gone through the boiling water training.
10 course.
33 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Well, we'll wait for that.
12 MR. BORGMAN: That was James Schott, who is the 13 superintendent of the main plant. '
'O 14 CnA1RMAN nnNoER: whenx vou, Mr. Schoee. .
15 MR. BORGMAN: Now, with regard to the schedule, 3 t
16 we have been monitored very. closely by the Staff for the llpastyearoreighteenmonths,andwehavedoneacomplete 17 la project review about-six months ago.
19 We wero reviewed by a task force of the Staff to 20 see if their fuel load date projections matched ours. At 21 tha time they came to the site, which I think was about ,
22 three months ago, I believe they came up with a projected 23 fuel load date of July and our. schedule had indicated June 24 15.
25 Now, since that review the Staff representative
,O .
cAce 9edera{ cReporte: 1, Dna 444 NORTH CAPITOt. STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
' .!, , , , - , - . - . ,-..-.a - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
22 I
, has come back again, as of last Monday, to get a current 2
update. And at the present time our critical path is
() 3 showing approximately 49 days late on a projected June 15 4
fuel load date.
L 5 Now, a thorough review of the schedule and a G
discussion with our people indicate that everybody believes
[
7 this negative 49 days can be improved upon. And I have been 8
given commitments that the 49 days will not be exceeded and 9
will, in fact, be improved upon.
10 As far as the corporation is concerned, we are-11 prepared to dedicate ourselves to work a second shift, work 12 overtime -- whatever it takes at least to get this fuel 13 load date sometime within a month and a nalf'or so of the 14 projected June 15 date.
15 So we. very much expect to load fuel sometime in 16 the third quarter of 1979. We have released fuel shipments 17 to General Electric. The fuel has been stored down in 18 Carolina, and we expect to have the fuel shipped in May and 19 June of 1979.
20 We think we've identified all of the mileposts-21 on the schedule.
22 We think we've identified the work remaining.
23 And we believe we can go ahead and finish this 24 plant as the schedule indicates.
25 So I think that's sort of a capsule version of clice. 9edera( cReporters, $nc.
444 NOf4TH C APITOL GTREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 10001
)
(202) 347 3700
23 1
the current status of the construction schedule.
2 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Are there any questions?
3 (No response.)
c3 4 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Thank you, Mr. Borgman.
(v )
5 Can we proceed to the next item, then?
6 MR. FLYNN: The next presentation is the plant 7 description with emphasis on the Mark II containment 8 features.
9 To address this we have Mr. Herb Brinkman, who 10 is the principal mechanical engineer, nuclear. He is also 11 chairman of the Mark II owners' group.
12 MR. BRINKMAN: Good morning, gentlemen.
13 I am Herb Brinkman. I will discuss, as Mr.
\/ 14 Flynn mentioned, the general overview of the plant with 15 some attention to the Mark II containment issues.
16 (Slide.)
17 I just thought I'd introduce the discussion with 18 some general information about the plant itself.
19 The Zimmer Station is located 24 miles southeast 20 of Cincinnati, Ohio, one-half mile north of the small village 21 of Moscow, Ohio. It's in Washington Township, Clermont 22 County, Ohio. And it is on a site consisting of sone 631 (J ) 23 acres.
24 The unit is owned in undivided joint ownership
} 25 by three companien: The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, cAce- 9edera( cRejwtters, Onc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W /.S H I N G TO N . D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
8 24 1 The Dayton Power & Light Company, and Columbus and Southern 2 Ohio Electric Company. Of the three companies, Cincinnati 8 .
l
) 3 Gas & Electric has sole responsibility for the design and
, ~ 4 construction of the plant. The other two partners are
)
5 financial sharing people.
6 The plant's capability and major equipm.ent I've 7 tried to identify here. We're looking at a 2436 MWt plant 8 with 839 MWe gross production.
9 The unit does incorporate a General Electric 10 boiling water reactor of the "5" vintage. It has a 11 Westinghouse 4-flow condensing turbine. Condensing water 12 is coolod by a natural draft cooling tower.
13 Our construction schedule is oatli'ned here.
,3
~/ 14 The preliminary safety evaluation report was 15 submitted in April, 1970 16 Our environmental report was submitted in January 17 of 1971.
i
! 18 The Atomic Energy Commission environmental state-l 19 ment was issued to us in September of 1972.
20 We received our construction permit in October 21 of 1972 and we've been working actively on the plant since 22 that time.
() 23 I probably should note that the safety evaluation 24 draft report was just recently issued. I do not believe that
) 25 the official copy is out at this time.
l ~J cAce 9eclera( cReporters, .Onc.
d44 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S HINGTO N. D.C. 20001
( (202) 347 3700
l 25
.1 As'Mr. Borgman indicated, our-fuel loading is 2 officially scheduled for June.. Mr. Borgman discussed that o 3 that is still a very reasonable date.
4 We're looking for commercial operation in
'O. . .
January of.1980.
5 6 (Slide.)
7 I thought we might'look at a' couple of--aerial 8 photos of the plant to see some of these pertinent locations i 9 of the facilities discussed previously.
. 10. This aerial slide is taken lookin'g north at' 11 the plant location. This is the small village of Moscow, 12 Ohio, the Ohio River flowing past the plant,.which is our.
14 IIere is U. S. IIighway 52, running adjacent .to-15 the plant. Cincinnati, Ohio is'off in the fog.
, 10 IIere we'see our. cooling tower, turbine building, 17 reactor building, and various construction sheds.
18 The CG&E property itself includss a small parcel 19 of' land, actually in the State of Kentucky, where we have 20 a railroad-to-barge transfer facility.- This-was used to 21 move heavy components to the site.
22 Our property line on the. Ohio side of the river i
~
'23 starts'with this row of trees and' extends almost to this- ,
t 24 approximate area on the river side of the highway. !
r Q 25 . Additionally, we own the acreage on the hillside !
i cAcc. 9ederal cReprtcu, Dnc. .
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 ;
_ , , . _ ~ , . . . . _ , , . . _ _ . .
26 1
I across from the plent. l 2 (Slide.)
O a .This is little't'ighter view of the plant, 4 looking from the opposite direction.
O 5 'You see a barge unloading facility here, where 6 shipments by rail have crossed the river, our barge shipments 7 have been delivered, and we can transport up to the )
8 building.
9 The structure in the foreground is the service 10 water intake structure. This is where.the service water cooling pumps and the cooling tower makeup pumps are it 12 located.
13 The water is piped from the servic'e. water building 14 via redundant piping up to the main reactor plant.
15 This, of course, is the cooling tower.
10 This is the cooling tower pump house, moving the 17 water from the tower to the pump house, into the unit.
18 The tall structure in the background with the 19 blue top is the reactor building.
20 The structure with the vertical stripes is the 21 turbine building.
22 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Mr. Brinkman, could you identify 23 the emergency heat sink location? It's some type of pool, 24 I've forgotten the name of it.
25 MR. BRINKMAN: The Markland Pool? Yes, sir, c0cc 9edera{ cReportets, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STMECT WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000t (202) 347-3700
27 1
that's' the Ohio River.
2 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Yes, I . . . its orientation
'~'
! 3 is not clear from just saying the river. I'd like to know f');
what it is. What's the geographical location of it in the 5
river?
MR. BRINKMAN: The Markland Dam is . . .
7 CIIAlleiAN BENDER: It must represent some section 8
of the river where there's a --
9 MR. BRINKMAN: There's a 90-mile pool of river 10 with no obstruction in front of the plant.
II CIIAIRMAN BENDER: And that's what you call the 12 Markland Pool?
13
.-s MR. BRINKMAN: There's a structure which is l/}
w j4 called the Markland Dam, which is probably close to 90 15 miles downstream from the Zimmer Station. It backs up as 10 a pool of the Ohio River.
CIIAIRMAN BENDER: While we're just talking about 18 it for a minute, there's been icing on that river over the 19 years. Does it happen in that area?
20 l MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir. It does happen in that 21 area. And provisions are made to take the suction of the 22 water down to the botton. of the river where, of course, it
,j~ 23 doesn't have ice.
24 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Okay.
<^% 25
, J MR. BRINKMAN: And we do have also facilities cAce-]cdeza{ cReportcu, $nc.
444 NOHTH C APITOL STR EET W AS HIN GTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
28 1 to pump warm water back to melt the ice on the surface.
2 CHAIRMAN DENDER: Thank you.
(,) 3 MR. BRINKMAN: Con'tinuing on, here's a little
.x 4 closer shot of the buildings.
s L >
5 (Slide . )
6 This is the reactor building, blue on the top, 7 concrete on the bottom.
8 The auxiliary building is located adjacent to 9 the reactor building. This houses the control room and to electrical auxiliary features.
11 The lower building, here, is the diesel generator 12 building. This houses the three diesel generator units 13 which are, of course, essential and availabid for power in r~'s
(_) 14 the case of loss of off-site power.
15 The long building with the vertical blue stripes is is the turbine building.
17 This smaller brick structure, here, is the 18 service facility, which houses Mr. Schott's office, work 19 shops, and that sort of thing.
20 (Slide.)
21 Here we see again the reactor building, the 22 service building, turbine building -- of course the cooling
/^') 23 tower.
G 24 I took this shot to show you that there is a
(~~'; 25 building behind the turbine building which houses the heater V
cAce Jedera{ cReporters, Snc.
444 N O Ft TH CAPITOL STREET W A S HIN GTO N, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
29 1 bay -- low-pressure heater bay. The domineralizer building 2 and radwaste processing.
_) 3 In the background,' this is the settling basin.
4 (Slide.)
n)
%J 5 This view was intended to show -- this is the 6 Highway 52 from Cincinnati, that some of you drove out 7 yesterday. You came out this highway and turned in to the 8 site.
9 I wanted you to see that we have constructed this 10 road, bridge, and additional road up the hill. The point
]
i 11 being that this is used for flood protection, so that we ]
l 12 have access to the plant in flooding conditions. U. S.
13 Highway 52 does have low places which are flooded rather
14 easily. 1 15 We have, of course, also flood protected all the 16 essential components within the plant to an elevation of )
17 546 feet, which corresponds to approximately the 1000-year i 18 flood. It's about 26 feet higher than any recorded history 19 flood in the Cincinnati area.
20 We've also, of course, designed for tornado 21 protection and seismic protection as well.
22 CHAIRMAN BENDER: As I understand it, the
[~)
v 23 switchyard is down in the flood plain now.
24 MR. BRINKt1AN : The switchyard is about elevation (j 25 520, which is higher than the maximum recorded flood, and c0cc- ]cdc7a[ cAcl10zicis, .0nc, 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
30 1 is at an elevation above which we are committed to shut the 2 plant down.
) 3 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Say that again.
4 MR. BRINKMAN: Our plans call for shutting down
'~'
5 the plant at an elevation -- river elevation of less than 6 the switchyard.
7 Let me give you some numbers:
a This is about elevation 520. We are committed 9 to shut the power plant down when the river is at elevation 10 517. So that before the water ever got up to this elevation 11 the plant would already be shut down and secured.
12 CHAIRMAN BENDER: But all the off-site pnwer 13 comes in through that station? -
) 14 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir.
15 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Is there other off-site power?
10 MR. BRINKMAN: There are two sources of offsite 37 power, a 69 KV line and a 345 KV line. But the transformers 18 for both of those power supplies are located at about the 19 same elevation.
20 We do have the diesel generators.
21 ( S lide '. )
22 Here's the main power transformer. Here's the 1
l l
)
~~J 23 auxiliary transformers. This is at about that 520 elevation.
24 But we do have diesels in the building flood proofed at 1
(')
RJ 26 546 elevation, the 1000-year flood, and the diesels would l cAcc. SIedera{ cReporters, One.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET l W ASHIN GTON. D.C. 20ool j (2o2) 347 37oo
31.
I be available for power supplies under those conditions.
2 Cl! AIRMAN BENDER: But all'the offsite power is Q
3 at'.520 or thereabouts?-
- 4 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir. '
O 5 It's probably noteworthy that the City of ;
6 Cincinnati would be.in real bad trouble if'the river were 7 up to the 525 elevation. That's a very unusual event that R J
8 we are talking about. '
9 CHAIRMAN BENDER: I fully believe it. .There are 10 a lot of hills in Cincinnati, but it's hard to move the 69-KV
~
ti substation to those hills.
12 Go ahead.
13 (Slide.)' '
() 14 'This slide is intended to be a simplified plan 15 view of the power plant..
10 I'll give you the handouts. It might be helpful i 17 with this slide.
18 I'm trying to show a simplified plan view.of the ,
19 power plant.
20 This structure here is the large reactor building 21 that we saw on the' photograph.
22 This is' low in the plant,-and I'm trying to point 23 ' out here that the essential core cooling pumps are located
}
24 in separate flood proofed cubicles around the outside gT 25 perineter of the reactor building, the point being that should
'V t
cAce 9edeta{ cReporteu, f.Inc.
444 NCHTH CAPITOL STREET WA SHIN GTON. D.C. 20001 I (202) 347 3700 .
32 1 there be a malfunction of one of these systems, it will not 2 impact the other systems. Each of these rooms is flood l ) 3 proofed, and each of them has a separate, independent heating
<j 4 and cooling system.
i
'~' 5 Of course this circle represents the support for 6 the reactor vessel itself.
7 This next building adjacent to the reactor a building is the auxiliary building that we did see in the 9 photographs. It contains the main control room, and we've 10 tried to identify an operator's desk, some control consoles.
11 It also includes an auxiliary building which 12 houses the essential electrical auxiliary components.
13 The diesel generator building is located here
/m
(_) 14 adjacent to the auxiliary. The main power transformer is 15 outside the diesel generator building.
10 The 69 KV reserve auxiliary transformer is 17 located here. The 345 KV reserve auxiliary is here.
18 Moving down to the next building, the turbine 19 building, with the high-pressure turbine end located in l l
20 this position, the two low-pressure turbine units on the 21 same shaft, and the Westinghouse 840 MW generator on this 22 end of the building.
r~S 23 The steam is transported from the reactor via N] -
24 piping to a tunnel in the basement, through the auxiliary
.e 3i 25 building and over to the turbino. The feedwater lines,
- JL cAcc-]ccl era [ cAeporters, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A S HIN G TO N, D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
33 l l
1 represented by the dashes, also move through that tunnel in 2 the basement of the auxiliary building. i 1
, 'Y 3 Moving further from the turbine, we have a l
~.)
4 condensate demineralizer room in the next lower building,
,~
ss' 5 and the low-pressure heater bay.
6 At the extreme river end of the building ic the 7 radwaste processing facility.
8 Then of course the river would be down at the 9
bottom of the screen.
10 The service building and office area is located 11 just behind the generator.
12 (Slide.)
13 Looking at a simplified section view of the plant f
("N) v 14 you see the reactor building housing, of course, the reactor, 15 the primary containment, and the various support systems 16 for the containment.
17 Then a section view through the auxiliary 18 building shows us the control room. Under it a cable 19 Spreading room. Below that a computer room. And the various 20 auxiliaries are also located in here.
21 We see the atcam coming from the reactor over 22 the top of the sacrificial shield wall, down through em 23 isolation valves, through the primary containment, into
( )
xj 24 the reactor building. It drops down, and then it enters
,~
, 25 what we call the steam tunnel -- which is just that, a O
cllcc- 9edera[ cAeportcu, Onc.
444 NOHTH C APITOL STR EET WA S HIN GTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
34 1 1
tunnel in the basement of the auxiliary building, whose 2 purpose is to transport the main steam and feedwater lines.
3 It goes' through the tunnel, comes back. up again in the O- l 4 turbine building and enters the high-pressure turbine.
l O s- rhe eneeneer, of couree, ie immediete1x be1ow l
- 6. the turbine. Here we are showing the reactor feed pump 7
turbines which, of course, are returning the condensate 8 through low-pressure, high-pressure heaters to the reactor.
9 The low-pressure heater bay-is on the other 10 side of the turbine building.
11 Clearly there are other features in the power 12 plant, but this is intended to give just a general arrange- i 13 ment and a feel for where the various facilities are in l
14 the plant. I 15 (Slide.)
I 10 This artist's rendering is intended to show the 17 general configuration of the Mark II containment, which we 18 do have.
19 Starting in the very center of course we see 20 the reactor vessel which is housing the nuclear fuel, and 21 is th6 source of the steam.
22 The reactor vessel is supported by a concrete 23 pedestal which extends from the base of the reactor down O 24 to the very basement foundation of the plant. 1 25 The reactor is also additionally supported by D).
x .,
c0ce- Jedeta{ cReporters Onc.
4A4 NORTH CAPITOL STREET i W ASHINGTON D.C. 2o001 (2o2) 347 3700 ff
!i
, . . , . . . , . . . - , , - - .- - - -- -- - - ^ ' ~ - *"'~' ~~ ^ ~ - ~ ~
35
-1 stabilizers attached to the primary containment near the 2 top of the vessel.
3 Moving out from the reactor, we see the sacrific-4 ial sheild wall which extends from the base of the reactor O- 5 up to an elevation approximately equal to the top of the 6 active fuel.
7 There is about a foot or fourteen inches of 8 space between the reactor and the sacrificial shield. This 9 is about a 10-inch thick concrete wall, intended for 10 radiation shielding. <
11 We see the main steam piping coming out the top 12 of the reactor, dropping down, going through isolation 13 valves, one inside the primary containment and one outside 14 the primary containment, and then being transported in four 15 separate pipes through the steam tunnel over to the turbine.
16 building. -
17 We also see the two feedwater return lines
- 18 coming through the steam tunnel.
19 There's a motor operated valve here, followed 20 by a check valve outside of the containment, followed by a 21 second check valve inside the containment, thence up to the l 22 feedwater spargers.
23 Moving further out we see, of courso, the O 24 primary containment, which is this concrete structure here, l
25 approximately six foot thick, reinforced, prestressed cAce. 9edetaf cRepotleu, One.
f 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET
- W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (2o2) 347.svoo
- t. , ,_ -
3G 1 concrete structure designed to take 45 pounds internal 2 pressure, 2 pounds external pressure, and 340 degrees
() 3 Fahrenheit in the drywell. This is adequate to accommodate 7,
4 any conditions which might exist after the unlikely event (x
/
5 of rupture of piping in the drywell. l 6 The structure is lined -- the entire containment l l
7 structure is lined with a steel liner, which is leak tested, a in order to furnish another barrier for radiation release.
9 CHAIRMAN BENDER: How thick is the liner, and 10 how is it attached?
11 MR. BRINKMAN: How thick is the liner? It's 12 about a quarter of an inch thick, and it's attached i3 directly to the concrete by anchoring -- a welding and
(~3
(_) 14 anchoring system.
15 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Thank you.
16 MR. BRINKMAN: There are a series of tendons, 17 which are not shown in this drawing, but there are a series 18 of steel tendons which form a belt at numerous elevations 19 up the entire wall of the structure. These are, of course, 20 pulled tight to prestress the containment.
21 There also is a series of tendons running 22 vertically from the bottom to the top of the containment,
(;
a 23 again with features which allow them to be tensioned prior 24 to servicing the unit.
'O 25 CHAIRMAN DENDER: What kind of tendon surveillance
<J cAcc. 9edera[ cAcjwifeu, $nc, 444 NORTH C APITOL STRCET W ASHIN GTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
37 1 program do you have?
2 MR. BRINKMAN: There, of course, is an inspection
() 3 before the plant is ever started.. It has been submitted to 4 the Staff. I think a certain number of the tendons are p
5 checked at each outage, but I don't know the exact number.
6 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Who is responsible for that?
7 MR. FLYNN: We can get that for you. To assist 8 Herb in this area I'd like to ask Mr. Crail, who is our 9 principal structural engineer, to stand up and address that 10 to the Committee.
11 MR. CRAIL: My name is Howard Crail. We have an 12 in-service inspection program, and we'll have tests at 13 1, 3 and 5 years. -
) 14 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Who is responsible in CG&E for 15 implementing the inspection program?
10 MR. FLYNN: That will be implemented by the 17 superintendent of the power plant. He will call upon other 18 bodies, organizations, within CG&E as needed for that 19 support.
20 For example, he could go to our engineering 21 department and cotistruction department for assistance in 22 this area.
(~') 23 CHAIRMAN DENDER: Are there written procedures Li 24 for carrying out that process?
25 MR. FLYNN: They are being prepared.
C')s i
&lce. 9eclcta{ cReporten, .Onc. l 444 NORTH C APITOL 61HEET i WA SHINGTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
I 38 1 CIIAIRMAN DENDER: Thank you. Go ahead. '
l 2
DR. ZUDANS: You mentioned a number that I'd like v
') 3 to know whether somebody will come back to it. You said 4 designed for 340 degrees, the drywell? You said that?
- 3
~
5 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir.
6 DR. ZUDANS: And prestressed concrete drywell 7 and one-quarter inch liner.
8 I would like to know whether you or somebody else 9 will tell us later how do you maintain the integrity of the to concrete at temperatures at this level. And the other 11 question is whether or not you have looked into liner 12 buckling, because first it's prestressed then it's heated.
13 And it's very likely it will buckle to the inboard of the C/ 14 drywell.
15 Ilas .that been considered?
10 MR. DRINKMAN: I think we have to clarify what 17 we mean by 340 degree Fahrenheit design conditions first.
18 DR. ZUDANS: All right.
19 MR. BRINKMAN: First I'd just like to say that 20 340 degrees is the maximum loss-of-coolant accident 21 temperature. The normal operating temperature of the 22 drywell is maintained not to exceed 120 degrees Fahrenheit 23 by redundant cooling systems located in the drywell.
}
24 So the condition is not normal during the
^1 25 operation of the plant, to have 340 degrees in the drywell.
u.J c0cc. 9edcza( cReportcu, Onc.
444 NORTH C A PITO L. STREET W AS HINGTON. b.C. 20001 (202) 347 37C0
39 l
1 I mentioned that because I think it puts the 2 problem,more into a less severe kind of category.
/"- P
) 3 DR. ZUDANS: Yes. But your pressures are going j i
4 to be seen in the drywell only if an accident occurs, and, 7-L) l
?
5 therefore, the normal operations have no consequence under l l
c these conditions. So what are the concrete temperatures, I 7 specifically, that you designed for?
8 MR. BRINKMAN: I think I'd have to ask for some 9 help in this problem.
10 MR. FLYNN: We would like to have Mr. Krishna Swamy i I
address this.
11
(
12 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: I'm from Sargent & Lundy c
13 Engineers.
( i
\s' 14 The operating temperature for which it is 15 designed is 140 degrees, and when you have an accident the '
10 maximum temperature is about 340 degrees in the atmosphere.
).
17 And then we can find out the temperature in the concrete by-- i 1a and we are performing heat transfer analyses to obtain i'
to the temperature distribution through the thickness of the 20 concrete and calculate the stresses in the concrete.
21 The thermal buckling of the liner is included 22 and studied and reported in the FSAR.
[) 23 DR. ZUDANS: Well, what is the concrete temper-v 24 ature?
- 25 MR. KRISHA SWAMY
- The concrete temperature right ,
I ct' Ice. 9edera{ cReporten, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL, STREFT W A S HINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 l
40 1
behind the liner will be reaching around 190 degrees or so 2
and remain'there for a short time, because the temperature \
({} 3 is a transient temperature. 'The long-term temperature 4
increase is of the order of about 30 degrees average.
O 5 So that will take it up to about.160 degrees.
6- DR. ZUDANS: So you would have 340=for a very 7
short duration, and the' quarter-inch thick liner prevents 8 ' concrete to be heated beyond 190' degrees.
9 MR. KRISIINA SWAMY: The liner will conduct at 10 340 degrees.. We do have a temperature profile.through"the 11 containment, including the liner, the concrete and every-12 thing, and we have presented a temperature profile in the 13 FSAR which will give the specific temperature'. The few
() 14 - inches of concrete, like the first inch or.so, would see 15 like 190 degrees, and tr cn it drops off ibecause of the 10 conduct of the concrete.
17 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: IIas the Staff been examining 18 this matter, Mr. Peltier?
19 MR. PELTIER: I don't have anyone here today that 20 _could answer any specific questions in that area. I believe 21 this is in the structural area, and I just don't the answer 22 to your question.
23 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Well, sometime will you make a 24 note to get that information for us?
- 25. MR. PELTIER: Yes.
o O
cAcc. 9ecl era ( cAejwitet.1, $nc.
444 NONTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
- g '
,- .v
- 47 1 , DR.'PLESSET: .Let me say -- -:
2 DR. ZUDANS:- Mr. Chairman,'I have another 3~ question, if I may.
'4 CIIAIRMAN . BENDER: Well, let's'let Dr. Plesset IO 5 get off'his point first.
6' DR. PLESSET: I'm anxious to sco how the 7 temperature would drop:from 340 to 190 through a quarter-0 ' inch $f steel. That's part of my difficulty, and'I think
~
3 9 part of Dr. Zudans' difficulty. . t 10 Is that clear,:what we'would like to have 11 clarified?
12 ' VOICE FROM-' TIIE l AUDIENCE : Dr; Plesset, we can't'
' 13 ' hear anything. -
14 DR. PLESSET: Well, we were told that if it wcro
}
15 340 within the drywell, that.the concrete at tho' boundary j 10 ' of the steel would bc 190. That's a little hard to sco,
- 17. right. offhand, how that could be. ,
18 MR. KRIS!!NA SWAMY: -Uc can make it easy to j
10 . understand if we have time / temperature transient curves. j 20 The 340 degrees lasts.for a short duration of time, so it _
21 takes'a while for the concrete to react to-that accident r 22 and pick up the temperature.
l -
23 DR. PLESSET: That's true. IIas'the Staff looked
- 24 at this? That's what I was wondering. Because it seems a '
D- V 25 litticLbit troublesome. '
?
c/lcc-]cdcra{ cAepoticu, One. "
444 NONTH CAPITOL. STREET
' W A SklN GTO N, D.C. 20001
'(102) 347 3700
42 1 CHAIRMAN DENDER: Well, since there's nobody here 2 from the Staff to --
', 3 MR. BRINKMAN: I would like to volunteer that this 4 is discussed in our FSAR, and we have a copy of it out in
! I 5 the car. There just wasn't room in this room for it.
6 (Laughter.)
7 DR. PLESSET: I just wondered if the Staff has 8 studied this particular item.
9 MR. PELTIER: I'll make a note about it.
10 DR. PLESSET: Fine, we can leave it at that.
11 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Fine. Go ahead, Dr. Zudans.
12 DR. ZUDANS: I just want to state essentially the 13 same subject. You don't have to answer it now, but I'd like
(,-) 34 someone to think about it.
15 Also, we'd like to know what the temperature 16 distribution that results in the floor that separates the 17 suppression pool from the drywell. And specifically, some-is time today, I'd like to see how you handle that built in 19 edge of that floor into the drywell wall under consideration 20 f actual temperature distribution that's experienced during 21 the operation and'during the transient.
22 MR. BRINKMAN: What was the question? The end
/~N 23 connection from --
i 1
\_/
24 DR. ZUDANS: The drywell external perimeter is
,r"x 25 supposed to be rigidly attached. Let's say the floor ~cxternal v
cAcc. ]cclcra{ cRcjwilers, Snc,
- 44 NORTH C APITOL bTFt ECT W ASHING TON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
43" ,
1 perimeter is~ rigidly attachedto the;drywell. wall.
~2 .. MR. BRINKMAN: -Yes.
'3' DR. ZUDANS: The drywell is afterwards prostressed, P
4 MR. BRINKMAN:
o
- YEr..
5 DR. ZUDANS: Which puts the wall.in compression., .
6 and later on the floor is heated on the ins 4,de. differently' 7- from the suppression pool s'ide. Therefore, a thermal 8 gradient develops in that ~~
1 9 I would like to see how you design that 10 connection. i 11 MR. - BRINKMAN : ILhave a slide of that connection l 12 in the FSAR. -We could discuss it.now or later.
13 -
MR. RURKA- Could.I just comment? My name is 14 Steve Rurka.. I 15 The construct! ion sequence of the drywell floor !
10 was done in such a way that there was an annulus provided -
17 around the perimeter of the floor, and then the containrtent f
l 18 '4as prestressed. The annulus was then filled with concrete -I i
19 so the floor would not restrict the prestrosrs. '!
20 In this way you accomplish your concern. i 27 DR. ZUDANS: Ho, you don't. Only one part of .[
i 22 it.
23' Is the drywell already prestressed now as it i y j 24 stands? t l 4 25 MR. RURKA: Yes.
,?
e cAce- 9eclcta{ cAcportcu, $nc.
444 NOMTH CAPITOL f>TR"ET WASHINGTON, D.C. 2o0o1 (aoz) 347 37oo
44 1 .DR. ZUDANS: Okay. We saw the annulus open space !
)
2 and we saw the robars. But I also read in the SER that you
- ( ) 3 will rigidly connect the.drywell wall to that floor. And'I'm 4 now concerned about thermal gradients that are developed in O 5 the floor and how that affects that connection.
6 CHAIRMAN DENDER: And there are two gradients.
7 One is the one that's under normal operating conditions, and 8 the other is transient condition.
- 9 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY
- Yes. Both und.. the 10 transient conditions and the operating conditions the 11 thermal gradient, the actual increase in temperature of the 12 drywell floor and the containment structure, have been 13 studied and reported in the FSAR. And, indeed, there is
( .
14 atual increase of the dimensions of the drywell floor, which 15 has been considered in the design of the containment.
16 DR. ZUDANS: Well, will the concrete crack, sill 17 it develop leak paths, and things of that nature? Have 18 they been looked at?
19 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: As far as the drywell floor 20 is concerned, because it is constrained by the containment 21 against the thermal expansion and growth of the compression, cnd 22 there is only surface cracking because of moment,'while on 23 one side it is cracking on the other side it's very
)
24 compressed, because of the moment.
25 DR. CATTON: I just have one questian:
)
cAce- ]cdew[ cRepodet.1, Soc.
444 NONTH C APITOL STRECT W A S HIN G TO. # C- 20001 (202) f .-3700
, ,. w-,- . _ , , - , , . . - . , . , . . . . , . .. -.. ~...---.- - . , _ . .. - . - -.- - . -
45 e
f 1
.- Typically, in calculating maximum pressure in 2
the dry,well.you're going.to assume a low heat transfer v- coefficient. This is inconsistent with the questions that i p- are being asked by Dr. Zudans, and I'm wondering if you 5
make two analyses: one to get bounding temperatures.in 6
the concrete a- et bounding pressures in the 7
drywell?
8 9A SWAMY: This relates to the design 8
? We do have the time / pressure transient 0
s the time / temperature transient curve.
So we use the time / temperature transient curve to get the thermal gradient.and thermal profile thr .gh the I3 '
concrete.
'4 DR. CATTON: But the heat transfer coefficient 15 that you use between the drywell environment and t'he steel 16 shell, is it the same one that you used when you obtained 17 the pressure in the drywell?
18 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: I'll have to defer to some 19 mechanical engineers for this.
20 DR. CATTON: When you're obtaining the pressure, 21 you obtain it conservatively by using a low heat transfer 22 coefficient. . That's not going to be conservative when you ,
O '
mexe ce1cu1atioae about ebe te vereture of ene coacrete-24 Well, why don't we leave it, CHAIRFAN BENDER:
25 and Staff will work with the Applicant to esthblish what the cAcc ]cdcra{ c.Reporten, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
l 46
'l computational procedures arc, and hopefully we can have 2 that pr,ior to the time when we have to consider this at O. 3 ehe fuu c - ietee. ;
1 4 If it, turns out we need more information it',s O 5 not impossible to have another Subcommittee meeting. But c we'll see what comes out of it.
7 Could you clarify one other thing while we've 8 got that diagram up there?
9 You're designing for the possibility of small 10 bypassing of the suppression pool. Could you' indicate what 11 the possible paths are for bypassing? I'm not saying that 12 they're going to happen, but we'd just like to knew a little 13 bit about what avenues have been of concern.'
- ]N- MR. BRINKMAN
- Okay. Possible bypass areas 14 I
15 would be cracks in this floor, or leaks adP cent to the 10 downconer pipes that penetrate the floor, or leaks in the -
17 downcomer pipes themselves. Or there are vacuum breaker i
18 valves which communicate from the drywell to'the wetwell 19 which could leak and serve as a L; pass.
20 Now, we have tried to address those areas, but 21 that's what we're talking about as far as bypass. [
22 CHAIRMAN BUNDER: Okay. I just wanted to get l
() 23 the spectrum identified. It makes it easier to talk about 24 it.
t Why don't you go ahead with the rest of your
(]) 25 cAce 9edera[ c.Sepoticu, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL. STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
47 1
presentation?
2
!!R. BRINKf1AN: Okay. We were talking about the (3
() 3 drywell. The primary construction is of reinforced, ;
I f-4 prostressed concrete, with a steel liner. It's designed to l NJ) l 5 retain pressure and temperature which woult' result from the l l
6 worst postulated pipe break in the drywell.
7 There is the floor that we're now talking about.
8 The floor lies here in the photograph and it, of course, 9 segregates the drywell from the suppression chamber.
10 The suppression chamber houses a large pool of 11 water approximately twenty feet deep around the entire 12 perimeter, t
13 In the event of a loss-of-coolant ~ accident, M 14 pressure would build up in the drywell and it would build 15 up in the downcomer pipes, until sufficient pressure were 16 built up to cicar the water out of the downcomer pipes, at 17 which time pressure would be relieved into the suppression 18 chamber and steam would be condensed to water.
19 The suppression chamber, like the drywell, is 20 thick concrete construction with a steel liner. The steel 21 liner on the wetted surf aces of the suppression pool is 22 stainless steel liner. Above the wetted surfaces is carbon steel and epoxy, special epoxy coating.
(]) 23 24 The suppression pool also serves as the source 25 of quenching water for safety valve operation. Vessel
(]')
c//ce- 9ederal cRepiteu, Onc.
444 NORTH C APIT OL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (102) 347 3700 l
l 48 i I
pressure is prevented from exceeding allowables, of course, t
2
- by some, thirteen safety valves attached to the main steam O '
pipine. aecheree of those ea rteen eefety ve1 vet eoee
-4 down through the drywell, through the f.'oor, and is--
O. 5
_i discharged in' quencher devices into the suppression pool 6
water.
7 These safety discharge valve devices are not 8 shown on this sketch, but they are distributed evenly 8
around'the entire wetwell.
10 In this photo here we see a series of pumps, 11 These are the essential core cooling components turbines.
12 which are housed between the primary containment'and the 13 reactor building at the bas'e of the plant.
14 I want!to point out that although they're shown 15 all together in this photograph, this is an artist's.
16 rendering. The real arrangement is as shown on the plan 17 view that I gave you earlier, all in their separate cubicles.
18 IIere we have the grade elevation, so we can see 19 relatively where the suppression chamber fits into the 20 grade level.
21 The next structure kind of wraps up the primary--
22 to kind of wrap up the primary containment, the next 23 structure out is the reactor building or secondary contain-Q.
24 ment. The reactor building's function is to house all of 25 the support equipment, of. course, for the reactor operation.
c0cc- 9eclerc{ cRepoeieis $nc, 444 NORTH C APITOL, STREET WASHtflCTON. D.C. 2000f (202) 347-3700
49 i The refueling pool -- spent fuel pool -- I'm 2 sorry -- is located here. And the steam drier separator
(')
N/
3 pool is located here.
4 By removing the dome, the head, it's possible (m) 5 to move the fuel up out of the vessel underwater and 6 transport it to the spent fuel pool. The same could be 7 done, of course, with the drier or separator. They could g be moved up, doors raised, passed over to tue storage pool, 9 and it all can be done underwater.
10 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Could you identify where the 33 main steam isolation valves are on that?
12 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes. There's one outside the la primary containment, one inside the primary containment, on
.q (j
_ 14 cach line. -.
15 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Is that the general philosophy 16 for all lines, to have one inside and one outside?
17 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir. That's one of the is important design criteria.
19 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Any exceptions?
20 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, there are some exceptions, 21 and they are identified in our submittal.
22 Some exceptions would be, sir, things like the pumps which take suction out of the suppre sion pool. It's
(')
23 24 not reasonable to have a valve under the water where it c' 25 couldn't be contained.
cAcc-]cdcra{ cReporters, Onc, 444 NOftTH C APITOL fi T Ft E ET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
50 1 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Could I ask the Staff what 7 their p,hilosophyfis in this respect? Ue noticed in the I 3 'SER there were some exceptions.
. \m/ 3
, 4: MR. PELTIEP: Could you repeat the question, sir?
5 CHAIRMAN BENDER: It has been normal practice o in these containments for isolation to.have one valve- !
7 inside and one valve outside. There apparently are some ,
t a- circumstances where both isolation valves are outside the ,
9 containment.
10 I don't necessarily think that's bad, but.I*
11 wondered how the Staff decides when it has to require inside 12 and outside isolation and when it doesn't?
13 MR. PELTIER: If I remember corre6tly, the only
(:) 14 exceptions were where there wcre two valve.s outside for (
15 maintenance purposes.
16 CHAIRMAN BENDER: I don't think that's a good 17 answer to the question I'm asking.
18 MR. PELTIER: I don't have a good answer to l
19 the question, because I don't have anybody here. Mr. Butler 20 probably could address that this afternoon.
21 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Why don't you hold that and 22 have Mr. Butler answer that question, if he can.
1
() 23 I'm not trying to make an issue out of it. I l 24 just want to understand it, h .25 Go ahead.
cAcc 'le<lcza{ cAcporters, $nc.
444 NONTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
.= . ~ . .
51-1 MR..DRINKMAN We're talking about the reactor 2 building. This is a concrete structure up to the elevation 3 of the perating floor. Above that it's a sheetmetal
}
4 structure, but it's not your ordinary sheetmetal barn. It's 15 especially designed to control in-leakage, because the 6 entire building, of course, is maintained under a vacuum.
7 It's maintained under a vacuum for the purpose 8 of' assuring that even should some radioactive particles 9 leak through the primary containment, they will not leak 10 out of the building, because any leakage will be in-leakage.
11 I mentioned before the entire structure is 12 designed for tornado loadings, seismic, and it's been 13 re-analyzed for these new pool dynamic loads pnd has been
(]) 14 found, with modifications, to be acceptable, capable of 15 taking those loads.
n 10 CIIAIRMAN DENDER: 1 assume when Mr. Butler comes 17 here we'll hear the current event on how loads are summed?
18 MR. PELTIER: That's correct.
19 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Thank you. Go ahead.
20 MR. BRINKMAN: The dryuell floor, we talked about 21 the leak paths. There's only one feature I don't show on l 22 here. We have installed vacuum breaker valves which do l
23 communicate through the drywell floor and serve the purpose O 24 of avoiding excessive upward pressure loadings on this 25 floor. There's a short pipe spool through the floor, with l cAce 9edera{ cReportcu, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 -
(202) 347 3700 .
52 1~ two valves in series on the outlet of the pipe.
2 , DR. PLESSET: Just.to be sure I understand, the
. ( )' 3 . reactor building is designed'against tornado?
4 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir.
5 DR. PLESSET: Thank you..
6' DR. ZUDANS: .Could you bring hack that previous 7 slide?
8 (Slide.) j 9 I will form a question, but I don't need an l 10 answer now.
l 11 There is this drywell head. region, what is a i i
12 bulkhead right on top of the drywell. That's the metallic -l l
13 closure. And above that'you have a concreto plate that 14 closes the'drywell? j l
15 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, those are removable, of I 16 course. Yes. -]
l 17 DR. ZUDANS: Now, sometime maybe someone'would 18 describe how the loadings -- what are these designed for, 19 precisely,t Oat kind of loadings?
20 !! R. BRINKMAN: I can't . . . can you help us,'
21 Steve? Do jou want it now?
22 DR. ZUDANS: Well, sometime, whenever you can.
23 Cl! AIRMAN BENDER: Well, if you can answer it 24 quickly, yes. If not --
{} 25 MR. FLYNN: We're prepared to address it right cAce 9edeza{ cReposten. Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 stoo
53 1 now, if you wish. Mr. Steve Rurka can address it.
2 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Go ahead.
v
^') 3 MR. RURKA: Are you interested in the loading on 4 the concrete slabs and not on the removable plug?
5 DR. ZUDANS: One on the steel dome and the other 6 one on the plug, removable plug.
7 MR. RURKA: Well, the steel dome was designed 8 for a break of a line -- there are two lines on the head 9 of the reactor. It was designed to take the internal 10 impingement load, based on just how they hit that steel 11 dome. Also it was designed to take the pressures, the 12 internal pressures of the containment, plus the thermal 13 loads and how they interacted with the -- '
r~S
_ ,/ 14 DR. ZUDANS: Desic,ned for 45 psi?
15 MR. RURKA: Yes, 16 DR. ZUDANS: What about external pressure 17 design?
18 MR. RURMA: The external pressure design on to that dome, I believe, was . . . I'd have to look that up.
20 I think it was somewhere like seven-some pounds, due to the 21 suppression negative pressures in the containment.
22 I'm not sure of that number, but it was somewhere
/~T 23 in that range. I believe somewhere around seven pounds L) 24 cxternal pressure.
~'
25 CHAIRMAN DENDER: Are the slabs above intended to
~ ,)
cIlcc- 9edera{ cAcymicu, $nc.
444 NONTH CANTOL STREET W A S HIN G TO N, D.C. 20001 (202) 347.?.700
54 1 do more than shield and provide a way of carrying the dead 2 load of, personnel and equipment walking across the top?
) 3 MR. RURKA: It's primarily shiciding, and they
-s 4 do have the capability of supporting whatever load is la) 5 required or more.
6 CHAIRMAN BENDER: But they're not intended to 7 carry any kind of accident loadings, are they, or anything 8 like that?
9 MR. RURKA: Right.
10 DR. ZUDANS: Well, that's why I brought up the 11 question, because I have here in the SER that there's a 12 pipe postulated to be broken in that compartment, and 13 there develops pressure. And the developed pressure is 14 3.2 pai. There's an indication that the slab is designed 15 for 18 psi, and these numbers are so low that I wanted to 10 confirm that that's not a typo.
17 MR. RURKA : Yes. The head was designed for all is of the jet impingement loads that occurred due to the 19 pipe break coming out of the reactor head.
20 DR. ZUDANS: Thank you.
21 CIIAIRMAN DENDER: But that's the drywell cover, 22 and not the slabs overhead we're talking about?
[) 23 MR. RURKA: Yes, the drywell cover, the steel V
24 head.
(~'i 25 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Go ahead.
i ~J c0ce-]cclcra{ cRepmicu, Snc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STR EET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
55 1
MR. BRINKMAN:. The only:olher thing we mentioned 2_ were the two vacuum ~ breaker valves in series, which are 3 designed to avoid excessive uplift on this floor should'the 4 pressure in the suppression chamber exceed the pressure in 7
IO. 5 the drywell.
6 .There are two valves there in series. There's 7 four groups of such two-valve series. Any three of the 8 four are adequate for the worst possible condition. Those g valves are redundant. .They are testable. And there are 10 facilities to check them during operation and to~ detect 33 if they're off seat.-
12 CIIAIRMAN DENDER: What size are they?
13 MR. BRINKMAN: I think they're about a 20-inch, f 14 CIIAIRMAN DENDER: Are they equivalent in size 15 to the ones that are being used now on the Mark I?
16 MR. DRINKMAN: I can't answel* what is used in l 37 the Mark I. Can anyone help me?
18 VOICE FROM TIIE AUDIENCE: Mark I's are bigger.
19 MR. DRINKMAN: Mark I's are bigger.
20 CIIAIlU4AN DENDER: Thank you. That's what I 21 thought. Go ahead.
22 MR. BRINKMAN: This concludes my planned 23 presentation.
24 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Are there other questions on l
25 the plant description?
c/lce-]ccl eta ( cRepoziers, Onc. ~
444 NONTH CAPITOL STREET WAtIHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 I - . . . . . - . - . . _ . - . .
56 1 (No response.)
2 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: All right, I 'think that's i 3 adequate for our purposes. -
l 4 Why don't we go to the --
5 DR. CATTON: Before you take that off, could you 6- show us where the control rod drive tubes are located 7 relative to yo~ur recirc pipe?
8 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Do you understand the question?
9 MR. BRINKMAN: I understand the question, but 10 I can't really show it on this photograph.
11 This, of course, is the recirc suction pipe 12 coming out of the vessel, down to one of the two recirc 13 pumps. Discharge, then, is up into a header. system, which s_) 14 actually communicates through five nozzles, evenly 15 distributed.
16 DR. CATTON: Now, as far as elevation is 17 concerned, where do those control rod pipes come from?
18 MR. BRINKMm1: The control rod drive tubing that 19 I think you're referring to -- there's an access door. He 20 walked into the plant at about this clovation yesterday, 21 and I think you saw this recirc piping, and you also saw 22 the control rod drive modules. They're actually out here.
l
(~T, 23 You saw the tubing communicating through this x_)
24 base, through the pedestal, and up to the control rod drives
- m. 25 which are located under the reactor.
-.)
cAce- 9edera( cRepozicu, Onc.
444 NOHTH C APITOL STR EET W ASHINGTO N, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
57 1 So, it's at this elevation inside the drywell 2 that you're closest. I 1
l
) 3 DR. CATTON: It looked to me like it went from .
l 4 just where you just had your pointer to just above that l
\
\}
5 recirc feed line, the one that goes circumferentially.
6 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, they do run vertically 7 downward, because the control rod drive modules are located g on the floor down at this elevation.
9 DR. CATTON: And they looked like they entered 10 right about -- a little bit above where your pointer is.
11 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, they enter here, and move 12 vertically downward and through the reactor pedestal 13 support, and then up to the control rod drive.
s ,) 14 DR. CATTON: Where they entered was above the 15 pipe that runs circumferentially around the reactor vessel.
16 MR. BRINKMAN: Above this pipe, sir?
17 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Could we just leave it --
18 rather than indulge ourselves in a long line of discussion 10 about things that aren't exactly perfect now, could we 20 ask the Staff to look into the vulnerability of those 21 control rod drive fluid lines from a failure of that 22 recirc line?
f'] 23 MR. PELTIER: Yes, sir, I made a note to do J
24 that.
25 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Thank you.
c/lcc 9edew{ cAcportcu, .Onc.
?44 N ortTH C A PITOL STRCET W A GHIN GTO N, D .C* . 20001 (402) 347 3700
58 1 CHAIRMAN DENDER: Gentlemen, it's almost 10:00 2 o' clock. Why don't we take ten minutes and then reconvene.
/
3 (Recess.)
7- 4 CHAIRMAN BENDER: All right, gentlemen, if you i
5 will take your seats as promptly as you can, we'll try to 6 recon" - 'he meeting, realizing it will take a little time.
7 next speaker on the agenda is Mr. Schott.
8 -
MR. FLYNN: To address the next item on the o agenda, Training Programs, Emergency Planning and Quality 10 Assurance and Control Programs, we have Mr. Jim Schott, it who is the Plant Superintendent.
12 Throughout most of the life of this project, 13 since 1969, Jim has been designated as the Plant Superintend-
- 4 i > 14 ent, and in that capacity has followed the job from its 15 inception.
16 Part of the time he was on temporary assignment 17 to General Engineering, when he functioned for awhile as la the mechanical engineer on the project.
19 CHAIRMAN BE11 DER: Go ahead, Mr. Schott.
20 MR. SCHOTT: Thank you.
21 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my 22 name is James R. Schott. I am the Station Superintendent 23 for the Zimmer facility.
({ )
24 I'd like to briefly encapsulize the training
, 25 program that we have in place for our plant staff, a
dlce-]edera{ cRepiten, Onc.
444 NORTH C APITOL S TFt EET W A SHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
59 1
The Zimmer Station training program was formu-2 lated to develop and maintain a plant orga'nication fully ,
3 qualified to assume the responsibilities for operation, (7 s) 4 maintenance and technical consideration of the facility.
( 5 As detailed in Chapter 13 of the Final Safety 6 Analysis Report three separate programs are utilized to 7 maintain positive control of the total plan, and to a accomplish the given objectives.
9 (Slide.)
10 The initial plant staff program was designed to 11 produce competent trained personnel at all levels of the 12 organization. The guidelines of ANSI-N18.1 were incorpor-13 ated into the training programs as appropriate.
[} 14 The requalification program provides continuing n, training for all plant personnel commensurate with their 16 area of responsibility.
17 The replacement training program is designed to 18 supp]y qualified personnel throughout plant life due to 19 attrition and turnover, d
20 (Slide.) f f
21 I would like to focus for the next few minutes 22 on the initial plant staff training program, since it is t t
23 this phase of training we are most intimately involved with
() 24 at this point in time.
25 As you can see, the initial plant training c0cc. 9edeta[ cReprtcu, Dnc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
'60 1 program'is further divided into several sub-programs, 2 specifically directed towards personnel responsibilities.and !
3 functional job assignments. i l({} -
4 'First, the operations group..
O
- \ ' 5 In sub -item 1. A. , the initial cold license
~
6' training programs. We have further divided that into-7 approximately'six phases.
r a Our training program for the senior staff, which 9 was myself and several members of the key senior' group._ The 10 assistant superintendent, the maintenance supervisor, our 11 operations engineer, our training coordinator, our instru-12 mentation and control supervisor began with their particular.
13 assignment in about 1973. .
f' ~
r.,,) 14 .That group was divided into two, and we partici-15 pated in observation and preoperational testing at the 16 Hatch plant.
17 The other group participated in a similar 18 activity at the Brunswick Power Station.
19 The initial group of licensed operators was 20 selected in late 1974, and their training program began 21 withinuclear fundamentals. Then it went into Dresden 22 technology, followed by a General Electric boiling water 23 simulated training at the Dresden Training Center, followed 24 by observation training'at the Dresden site, returning to s 25 Zimmer for technical training on Zimmer facilities, and now cAce 9edera{ c. Reporters, Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STFtEET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
- . . . -- - .- ~, .- - - , - . ,- .~
61 1
they are participating in continuing review of Zimmer 2 systems: technical specifications writing procedures,
() 3 prooperational testing and routine operating functions, as 4 necessary.
)
5 The supervisory staff has participated in various 6' types of training, as you see listed. Not necessarily all 7 persons have participated in the activities as you see, 8 but depending upon their specialty area, that is the partic-0 ular training program that they are focusing on.
10 The plant technicians are involved in actual 11 on-the-job training. That has been supplemented with some 12 of the programs that you see under item number 3.
13 In addition, you mentioned a concern, or you n
(_) 14 questioned before how nuch boiling water experience we might 15 have on the plant staff. In addition to the Navy PWR to experience, we have sent various other supervisors to 17 actual operating facilities. For example, we have sent our
.3 maintenance foreman to the Hatch plant, and they participated 19 in a refueling outage at that station.
20 They were involved in some Appendix J leak 21 testing of valves.
22 They participated in some other maintenance
,o 23 activities.
U 24 We have sent instrumentation supervisors to the 25 Monticello plant for observation and training at that 7
)
c0ce-]cdcra{ cRepoticu, Snc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STHEFT W A S HIN CTO N , D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 I '
.62'
. 1 facility.
2 We'have sent rad chem, or radiation protection
' O/ 3 chemistry-technicians, to the Monticello plant'for actual
'4 . supplementing of that Station's rad chem group.. And we-0 5 have two individuals there now who just went through a 6 refueling: outage.at Monticello.
7 So we are accumulating some goodly experience 8 from actual BWR facilities.
9 I will not touch in much detail on the requalifi-to cation or replacement training program, unless you so desire, 11 and I would like to just summarize the discussion by 12 indicating that we feel we have an adequate training.
13 program, we have.well qualified personnel, and we.are ready O . 44 eo acceve fu11 reegeneibi11ev for the overeeton of the 15 power plant.
10 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Mr. Schott, could you make any 17 comments about notable differences between the BUR-5 Mark 18 .II containment system and the Mark I BWR-4, I guess it is, 19 systems that you've been using as a training vehicle?
20 MR. SCIlOTT: Right.
21 Well, as you are well aware, we're the first 22 Mark II, at least in the United States, and we'll probably 23 go operational first. So our training program was slightly 24 modified from what the generic General Electric approach 25 had ren.
cAce 9eclcta( cReportcu, Snc.
444 NOHTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. zoool
, (zoa) 347-37oo
63 1
In order to obtain senior license eligibility for 2 the majority of our personnel -- I will use the senior
,) 3 license program, or the R.O. operations program as an a
4 example -- we obtained the senior license eligibility by
,\,
\
'-) 5 participating at the Dresden Station, which was the Mark I.
6 And then once that program was underway, and that training 7 had been accomplished, we then began to concentrate on the 8 Zimmer Station itself and Dresden was shoved into the 9 background and the training emphasized those differences.
10 Actually, our people grew up with the construction 11 of the Station, so to speak, our senior people, as well as 12 the top group of the Operations, Instrumentation, and 13 Maintenance people. They actually saw the construction and
(_) 14 have participated in certain testing activities since that 15 time. So they are aware of the differences and, as time 16 goes on, they become more and more acquainted.
17 CIIAIRMAN DENDER: Is any attempt made to 18 address the character of the transients that you might see to in the Mark II BWR-5 system, the changes in power control, 20 for example?
21 MR. SCIlOTT : Yes, sir, that is part of the 22 training program itself. And some of those transients are (S 23 actually simulated on Mark I, and then we try, by virtue L,1 24 of computerized printouts and so forth, we try to present r3 25 those in a simplified form to our operating personnel.
L-)
cAce- 9edera( cReportcu, $nc.
444 NLRTH C A PITOL STREET W A B hl N GTO N, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
'64 1- I don't know if I've answered your question.
2 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Probably as well as you can. a h 3 Thank you.
4 Are there other. questions? .
O 5 (No response.)
6 Thank you,-Mr. Schott. [
7 The next item-.is the Quality Assurance /Ouality
[
8 Control Experience for Zimmer -- excuse me -- the Industrial 9 Security, I skipped that. .
10 MR. SCHOTT: What did you want to do?.'I have- <
11 also Emergency Planning, I have Quality. Assurance for 12 Operations, and I also have Security.
13 CHAIRMAN BENDER: All right. I'm.sorry. Go ,
A)
(_ 14 ahead. Why don't you just go through the whole situatic . as 15 rapidly as you can. I just misread my program here.
is (Slide.)
17 MR. SCHOTT: I will address the Emergency Plan.
18 . As discussed in the Safety Evaluation Report, 19 the Emergency Plan for the Zimmer Station exceeds the 20 requirements specified in 10-CFR 50 Appendix E, and has 21 extensively utilized the guidance of- Regulatory Guide 1.101 22 throughout the preparation of the Plan.
23 The concept for coping with emergencies has been
[
24 built around the use of existing organizations, facilities
.Q 25 and equipment to the fullest extent practicable.
%. /
cAccOedera{ cReprieu, One.
444 NOHTH CAPITOL STREET WA bHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
65 1 The line of organization or communication that 2 you see before you is the relationship between the cognizant
,) 3 groups that we have made personal contact with.
,s 4 We have discussed, we have planned, we have
\ )
'~
5 exchanged ideas and information, and final agreements as 6 documented in the form of agreement letters from the partic-7 ipating agencies and groups are part of the plan.
8 We are at present finalizing our procedures that 9 are necessary to implement the various portions of the 10 emergency plan.
11 As previously noted, we have been and continue 12 to work actively with local and state groups and agencies 13 responsible for public health and safety.
(a> 14 For example, planning sessions with the States 16 of Kentucky and Ohio, Campbell and Pendleton Counties in 10 Kentucky, Clermont County, Ohio, and Washington and Monroe 17 Townships in Ohio, are an ongoing activity.
1e Plans are being formalized and finalized with l 19 mobilized local support groups, for example, the township 20 and county police and fire departments, for resident l
21 notification.
22 Our Company Communications Engineer is finalizing i
i /; 23 design and procuring radio equipment that will be used to
\ ,'
~
24 communicate with offsite support agencies during emergency
~
- 25 situations.
1 J
l cAcc 9edera{ cReportets, Snc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A S HI N GTO N, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
66 1 Arrangements have been made with all groups 2 involved in immediate action to install tone-actuated radio
(}
il 3 equipment.
4 We have worked with and consulted Dr. Eugene Sanger of the Cincinnati General Hospital Radioisotope Lab 5
6 throughout the preparation of this plan, and have incorpor-7 ated his suggestions as appropriate. .
8 The Station First-Aid and Personnel Decontamina-9 tion Rooms have been laid out and equipped using Dr.
10 Sanger's input and suggestions.
11 The Cincinnati General Hospital has agreed to 12 accept contaminated injuries for treatnent, and a special 13 decontamination suite at the Cincinnati General Hospital
/n i i ja has been extensively modified and reserved for this purpose.
x.)
15 This suite consists of several treatment rooms, special 16 consideration for levels of contamination, capability to 17 perform minor surgery, use of the radioisotope lab equipment, is and post-care hospital space.
19 We have worked with Dr. Sanger and his staff 20 throughout this modification.
21 Working arrangements and agreements with St.
22 Luke's Hospital in Fort Thomas, Kentucky assure that em 23 adequate provisions for accommodating injured personnel in v) Kentucky have been made.
24 em 25 In sumnary, the Zimmer Emergency Plan provides
)
m cAcc-]cdcra[ cRepiten, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W AS HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 (2o2) s47-37oo l
67 I
, a comprehensive plan that includes adequate organiz'ation, 2
communications procedures, monitoring information, training, I
( )- 3 first aid, transportation, assessment, review, drill, 4
critique, decontamination and offsite support to adequately O 5 cope with and assure that measures can'and will be taken to i
i 6 protect public health, safety and property.
7 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: With regard to the relationship i
8 between the Kentucky and Ohio emergency response organiza- i 9
tions, are they two independent entities, each one respond-to ing separately, or is there a way to-coordinate the two 11 groups?
12 MR. SCIIOTT: .If I would have answered that 13 question several years ago,.it.would have been two separate 14 entities. At the present time:the gentlemen who are 15 - responsible at the State level for the various dis' aster 16 and energency training groups are working in close coopera-17 tion with one another, as well as'with.the States of 18 Pennsylvania and Indiana, in order to perform and provide 19 coordinated response groups, coordinated. protective. action l 20 guides, and things of that nature.
l 21 So there is a positive effort that is now ongoing 22 in order to coordinate at the State level.
23 -CIIAIRMAN DENDER: You haven't said anything atsut
[
24 fire response,:cxcept in the most general terms. What l]} 25 arrangements have you got for fire protection? That is, off c0ce- 9edeta( cAepotieu, Sne.
444 NONTH CAPITOL ST REET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
68' ,
7 1 .the plant site? '
2 MR. SCIIOTT : Would you be interested in the i 3 off-site. type. fire response,'or what we're doing in fire I 4 -protection in. general?
O 5 CliAIRMAN BENDER: Well, I think-a little bit in 6' the total context would be helpful, without going into it 7 in great detail.
8 MR. SCI!OTT : We have begun actual training of 9 ~our own in-plant personnel.
10 We are utilizing the services of professional 11 fire consultants to provide the initial training for these 12 peopic, so they have the theory of fire and those types'of t
13 fundamental basics. -
O 24 ana ehen we are aceueuy seginning fire stigede -
15 training. We are now formulating our fire fighting plans.
16 and procedures for handling contingencies within the plant 17 itself.
18 We have made z.rrangements with the Washington 10 Township Fire Department, which is located in Moscow, Ohio, 20 as the initial offsite response agency that would respond 21 to a fire call.
22 They further have mutual agreement pacts with 23 local neighboring fire departments. For example, the New 24 Richmond City Fire Department is located about 10 miles 25' towards Cincinnati. They are the first backup for c/lce 9edeza[ cReporters, .Onc.
444 NOFf TH C APirOL STREET W ASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
69 1 Washington Township.
l 2 So all of these arrangements have been made, and l
<~' 3 we have had excellent arrangements and working agreements
'J 4 with these organizations throughout the years, because of
' ) 5 the close proximity of our plant which is right down the 6 stream.
7 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Do they all have professional 8 firefighting groups?
9 MR. SCHOTT: No, sir. For the most part, they're 10 volunteer organizations. In New Richmond -- well, the 11 Chief is normally full time, but the response is strictly 12 volunteer.
13 CHAIRMAN BENDER: What is the nearest professional yj 14 firefighting group? By that I mean a paid fire department 15 will full-time people who are accessible?
16 MR. SCHOTT: Well, naturally, the City of 17 Cincinnati, has --
18 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Is that the nearent one?
10 MR. SCHOTT: We have several other --'well, fully, 20 totally professionally manned, I would say yes, the City 21 of Cincinnati.
22 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Have you made any attempt to
'~'., 23 deal with thcu in tne event that they --
-I 24 MR. SCHOTT: No, sir, we have not, because we 25 feel that the response that we obtain from the nearby c0cc3cdera{ cReptleu, Onc.
444 NOi 5 4 C APITOL STRECT W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 l'
70 1 volunteer groups would far exceed the response that we would 2 hope to obtain from the City of Cincinnati.
("T . 3 CHAIRMAN DENDER: You may very well be right, but V
4 I recall one or two fires where professional firefighting O
%- 5 organizations provided very good advice to non-professional 6 staff groups.
7 MR. SCHOTT: I might point out that the profession-8 al consultants that I spoke of are three gentlemen who have 9 retired from the City of Cincinnati fire organization, and 10 they have formed their own fire consultant group. And those 11 are the gentlemen that we have engaged to assist us in our 12 initial planning and training and formulating of firefighting 13 procedures. ,
CHAIRMAN BENDER: That only emphasizes the point
(]) 14 15 I make. It's nice to have some professional people who can 16 be drawn on. It's true, they may not arrive at the instant 17 of a fire, but sometimes a fire goes on for awhile and la having access to them is helpful.
19 I'll leave it there. Go ahead.
20 DR. ZUDAMS: Can I ask a question, just for 21 curiosity? Who is responsible at the present construction l l
22 stage for fire in the power plant? l 23 MR. SCHOTT: I'm not quite sure I understand. ,
24 DR. ZUDANS: There's some fire protection during ;
I es 25 construction, right now. Who is responsible for fire L._h cAcc- 9edeza{ cReporters, Snc.
d44 esORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
71 1 protection at the present time?
2 MR. SCHOTT: The constructor, who is Kaiser Engineers, are the primary response organization.
(v) 3 And ency 4 have a well trained, fully staffed group of fire brigade 5 persons who would respond initially.
6 They also have the same arrangements with the 7 Moscow Fire Department nearby as backup, 8 DR. ZUDANS: Do you plan to retain the same 9 people to maintain a continuity after the plant is finished?
10 MR. SCHOTT: No, sir. It would be the plant n staff that would be the fire brigade initial response teams.
12 CHAIRMAN DENDER: At what time does your plant 13 staff take ever responsibility? -
.,n x_) 34 MR. SCHOTT: There's really not a clearly defined 15 point. It's an overlapping arrangement. Uc are responsible, 16 certainly, for certain areas that have been turned over to 17 us for operation, and it's a phasing in and a phasing out is process that is very -- well, it's almost impossible to try 19 to describe, but it does work.
20 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Will you be fully in charge 21 when the fuel is brought to the site?
22 MR. SCHOTT: As far as the fire protection on 23 the refueling floor we will be responsible for the fire
("}
v 24 protection in that area, yes, sir, r3 pro CH. AIRMAN BENDER: Well, I'm not sure that I J
cAcc- ]cdcra[ cAcpiten, $nc, 444 NOH1H CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
72 1- recall all of the fire protections there, but if there's, 4
2 for example, fire fighting equipment, like a water spray
{} 3 system that's installed, who would be managing that?'
4 .MR. SCHOTT: As far ..s the fuel floor is concerned, O 5 We are admidistratively valving closed the water fighting' 6 facilities in the. region of the fuel vaults, and we have 7 purchased special-chemical extinguishing equipment'to use 8 during that period of time, before the fuel becomes flooded.
O CHAIRMAN DENDER: .I see. Okay.
10 MR. SCHOTT: To avoid inadvertent criticality.
11 CHAIRMAN DENDER: I assume the Staff is paying 12 attention to this aspect of the transition from construction 13 to operation? .
14 MR. PELTIER: I'll have to check.into that._
15 CHAIIUiAN DENDER: Thank you.
10 Go ahead with the next phase of your presentation.
17 MR. SCHOTT: This is Quality Assurance for 18 Operations. I'll briefly try to summarize this.
19 The primary elements of the Quality Assurance 20 Program for Station Operation are administrative control, 21 reviews, audits, reporting, management ~ review and training.
22 Structure systems components, activities and 23 procedures have been reviewed to evaluate their safety-related
[
24 functions.
(} 25 The QA program consists of managerial, administrat..ve cAce- 9ederaf c.Reportcu, Dnc.
444 NOHTH C APITOL STFtEET WA6HINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
73 j 1 and operational controls and procedureu used to assure the 2 safe operation of the facility.
1
() 3 Appropriate administrative directives are being 7, 4 prepared and implemented to adequately cover the activities l 5 shown on' the Vugraph. These activities have been selected 6 to cover the broad spectrum of nuclear plant activities, and 7 are aimed at administrative responsibility and/ or their 8 functional nature.
9 I think with that I just might close my formal 10 presentation, and see if you have specific questions on 11 operational quality assurance.
12 CHAIRMAN DENDER: Well, a few points that perhaps.
13 are wcrth addressing. -
34 Where does the quality assurance manager report?
15 MR. SCHOTT: The organizational arrangements that 16 exist at CG&E are that we have a principal quality assurance 17 and standards engineer, Mr. Schwiers, who will be making a 18 subsequent presentation. His primary responsibility has 19 been in design and construction. He reports to Mr. Waymoyer, l 20 who is the ma iger of the engineering department, t
l 21 II 'e on my staff what we call a station quality 22 engineer, and he reports directly to rac for operational i
() 23 aspects of the program, and he has an open line of communica-24 tion with Mr. Schwiers.
/ CHAIRMAN BENDER: Is that the situation that will (3 /
25 cAcc. ]chta{ cAcporters, Snc. .
444 NONTH C APITOL STREET W A S HIN G TO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 u - -
74 1' exist when the plant is in operation?
2 MR.'SCHOTT: That is the intent at this time.
i- 3 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Mr. Schwiers will continue to 4 have .some kind of quality assurance responsibility? t O 5 MR. SCHOTT: -Quality assurance as it pertains to 6 an overview of the station operation. Perhaps we might call 7 him the eyes and cars of the operations review committee, j 8 corporate type, and he would be responsible for certain 9 audits and surveillance activities during the operational i 10 . phase. Strictly a quality assurance auditing type function.
11 CHAIMU4N BENDER: Has the Staff been through this l 12 aspect of the organization yet?
l 13 MR. PELTIER: Yes, it has. . i
() '14 I would like to point out, though, that I'think 15 there have been some changes made in the organization since 16 'the draft SER, which we have not looked at in detail.
17 CHAIRMAN BENDER: All right. Well, I think it's i is proper that the Staff is sure what's being done is 19 consistent with current practice.
20 You said little about your safety review 21 committee. Does one exist, and what is it made up of?
22 MR. SCHOTT: The station review board, as we 23' call it, is a station safety committee. He also have an
}
24 operations review committee, which is at the corporate or i
l 25 the headquarters level. The station review board is chaired i
cAcc- LTedera{ c.Repoticu, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WA SHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 t,
75 1 by myself and consists of the prime first-line supervisors 2 of the plant staff.
3 We have organized i we have had innumerable t(])
4 meetings, and we have reviewed quite a few of the safety O 5 related procedures, and have recommended approval of those o procedures.
7 And'then I am the final approving authority.
8 At the corporate level Mr. Borgman is the 9 chairman of the operations review committee, and it consists 10 of important management personnel at the engineering level.
11 The manager of electric production is represented on that 12 committee, and the manager of nuclear fuels and advanced 13 engineering projects is represented on that committee, as
(,,)
,, 34 well as cognizant electrical- mechanical type engineers.
15 CHAIRMAN DENDER: Thank you. ,
10 MR. SCHOTT: Would you loke to go right ahead 17 into Security?
I 18 CHAIRMAN DENDER: Yes, why don't you go right 19 nhead into Security?
20 MR. SCHOTT: I'll just briefly summarize the 21 Security Plan as it stands today.
22 13.7 of the Safety Evaluation Report summarizes 23 the status of the security plan as it exists today.
24 We.have prepared and submitted with the FSAR a l
25 security plan that was subsequently amended and was in l cAcc- 9cdcra{ cReporters, Snc.
444 NORTH C Af'lTOL STR EET W AfiHINGTON, D C. P0001 (202) 347-3700
76 I conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.17 2 A totally revised plan. responsive to 10 CFR 7355 '
h 3 was submitted in May 1977. We have responded'to Staff 4 questions,' met with the security review team, had a Los O 5 Alamos consultant team visit the site, and we have amended 6 the plan to respond to NRC positions and concerns.
7 The Staff has not, as of now, completed their B review of the evaluation.
9 We have specified and procured equipment that 10 meets the requirements of Part 7355. It is our intent.to 11 comply with that regulation. >
12 As you are well aware, the stringent requirements 13 of Part 7355, and the unique features of a security plan, 14 dictate that this plan and accompanying drawings are 15 proprietary.
10 We have the security plan as presently filed 17 and all accompanying drawings with us today. We would be 18 most pleased to discuss them with you in whatever detail 10 you care to go. We rather feel that it should be a closed 20 session, however.
21 CIIAIIU1AU DENDER: Well, we're not planning a 22 closed session here, and this is not the world's greatest i
23 place to have one, as you can imagine.
24 (Laughter.)
25 Me'll probably have to hear about it in moro c/lce- Ciedera{ cAcpoticu, Snc, d44 NORTH CAPITOL STFICET ,
WASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 t
,m._._ _, . -. _ , . . _ _ _ . . . - . _ _ . - . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _
77 detail in a location where we can hear in some detail how
~1' 2- you' plan to manage this thing.-
3 There are a couple points, though, that I'd like
(} ,
4- to raise.now: .
LO 5 I guess the Ohio River is. patrolled by.the Coast I
6 Guard?
7 MR. SCHOTT: They have the primary responsibility B for river traffic.
7 9 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Do they have a role in your 10 plant security? , ,
11 MR. SCHOTT: They do not have a role in security, 12 no, sir.
13 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Do they-have a role in the
( 14 cmcrgency planning?
15 MR. SCl!OTT: Yes, sir, they do.
16 Cl! AIRMAN BENDER: I forgot to ask about it .
17 before: ;
18 Would you mind just commenting quickly on.what r
19 their role is in the emergency planning?
20 MR. SCllOTT : Their prime responsibility has to I
21 do with patrol of river traffic, and, depending upon the 22 emergency classification and the sectors'that are impacted,
() 23 we would notify the Coast Guard, either through telephone 24 or we have arrangements with them to provide wireless
(} 25 communication, and indicate to them what portions of the c:4ce ]ccletal cAcpotten; .Onc.
444 NORTH C APff'OL DTREET 4 WASHINGTON. D.C. - 20001 (202) 347 3700 1 l
78 1
I river have been affected. It would be their responsibility 2
to offect, essentially, river blocs and clear the zone of l 3
!) all traffic. Again, depending upon the accident classifica-4 f tion.
e')
v 5
CIIAIRMAN BENDER: I see.
6 With regard to security, again, I would assume 7
that, like the fire protection, the local security organiza-8 tions, at least in the Townships, are probably small and 9
not very strongly organized.
10 What is the principal State or local security 11 organization to draw on?
12 MR. SCIIOTT : You were correct in assuming what 13 you did. "
14 The local police group, which is the local Moscow 15 sheriff or police chief, is essentially a small organization.
16 We can call upon them in certain contingencies.
17 IIowever, the basic responsibility lies with the la Clermont County Sheriff for offsite security support, and 19 ue do have arrangements with the Sheriff, and he has 20 constant roving Sheriff's patrol cars that are in the 21 area.
22 We have radio communication with the Sheriff's 23 dispatcher, and he has assured us that he can respond in 24 a very short period of time with at least one car, and 25 possibly two, in ten minutes. And that could be backed up cAcc. 9edera[ cReportcu, Snc.
444 NORTH C APITOL. STR ECT WASHINGTO N, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
79 I
with further assistance, as he calls in patrolmen from 2 outlying regions.
O 3 Now, in eddition to thee ehere 1e e neerby Ohie 4 State Patrol facility, and we can call on the Ohio State 5
Patrol for backup as may be required.
G CIIAIRMAN DENDER: How about the jurisdictional 7 boundary across the river? IIave you done anything about 8 trying to work out anything with that?
9 MR. SCIIOTT: The security plan, as it is presently 10 written, does not encompass any portion of Kentucky.
11 CIIAIRf1AN BENDER: Well, the river 'isn't all 12 that wide, and boats travel back and forth and from one 13 side to the other, with some caso, as I gath6r.
14 Wouldn't it be wise to determine whether Kentucky 15 also might provide some security support, if needed?
16 IIR. SCl!OTT: The State boundary of Kentucky is 17 at the low water mark of the river on the Ohio side, but 18 Kentucky security forces have no jurisdictional responsibil-10 ity on the Ohio shores.
20 And these law enforcement agencies rather 21 jea3ously guard their jurisdictional rights. So we have 22 not found it necessary to include Kentucky in our 23 security arrangements. We feel that we are adequately 24 covered with the provisions that we have made arrangements ,
l O 2' c r-
. l 1
c/lce 9eclcra( cRepdeu, $nc. l 444 NONTH C APITOL STREET W A6HINGTON. D C. 20005
)
(202) 347 370o
]
80 1
4 -
CIIAIRMAN DENDER: Tom, do you want to comment?
2 MR. EATON: Yes. Is it not true that all the
~
water is in the State of Kentucky, then? Isn't the Kentucky
(} 5 State line the northernmost shore?
MR. SCIIOTT : The low water or pool is.
MR. EATON: So most of the river is in the State 7
of Kentucky?
8 MR. SCIIOTT : The river is in Kentucky, that is a 9
fact.
10 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Well, I don't think we can go l'
very far in this direction today, but I really believe the 2
Staff needs to -- it's been sometime since we've looked at 13 these relationships between State borders, an'd the proximity
( 14 of Kentucky in this case is quite close.
15 And while I don't think we envision any active 16 kind of intrusion on the plant, there's no reason for 17 ignoring the possibility.
18 Thank you. Are there other questions on security?
19 (No response.)
20 The next item, I believe, is the Quality
' Assurance / Quality Control E):perience for the Zimmer plant, 22 and Mr. Schwiers, I believe, is going to make that presenta-( tion.
Thank you, Mr. Schott.
11R. SCIINIERS : Mr. Chairman, Subcommittec Members, clice 9ederal cRctw:ters, Dnc.
Add NOHTH C APITOL fiTRIJT W A SHIN GTO N. O.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
81
- j 1 honored guests: l
. 1 2 At this time I'd like to make a presentation on 3 the quality assurance / quality control.
4 I have broken my presentation down into three 5 segments.
6 First, I'd like to define quality assurance and 7 quality control. I'd like to give you an overview of the 8 quality assurance and quality control activities at the 9 site. And then I'd like to relate some of the experiences.
10 In accordance with ANSI-N45.210, quality assurance 11 is defined as those planned and systematic actions necessary 12 to provide adequate confidence that an item or facility will 13 perform satisfactorily in service.
A V 14 This same standard defines QC as those QA actions 15 which provide a means to control and measure the character-10 istics of an item, process or facility to established 17 requirements.
18 Now, most of the activities of Cincinnati Gas &
19 Electric Company at the Zimmer project have been involved 20 in quality assurance. However, there are certain departments 21 within CG&E who form and perform quality control activities.
22 Our construction section, which is located at
() 23 the site, provides the initial surveillance to assure that 24 specifications and design documents are complied with.
() 25 After the installation, our electric operating c/lcc- 9ecl era { cRe,bortets, .Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STHCET W ASHINGTON D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
82 4
1 test department functions to test all of the electrical l 2 installations. They check the electrical' equipment, they 3 verify continuity of circuits, they do other electrical
(])-
4 construction tests. l 5 The electric production department functions to 6 provide calibration for all of the instruments that are i
7 supplied to the project initially.
8 Kaiser Engineers is delegated as constructor for 9 the project, and basically most of the quality centrol 10 activities are performed by Kaiser Engineers. They are 11 responsible for the installation of approximately 85 percent 12 of the project.
13 They also have subcontractors, who function to
() 14 provide specialty services to assist them in the completion 15 of construction work.
16 It is estimated that 40 percent of the work 17 activities performed by Kaiser Engineers and their subcon-18 tractors are safety related. The remaining 15 percent of 19 the project is performed by subcontractors who report 20 directly to Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company.
21 The purchase orders, the quality assurance 22 requirements, the quality control requirements are spelled 23 out in specifications provided by our architect-engineer, 24 Sargent & Lundy, and it is our responsibility, assisted by ;
25 Kaiser Engineers, to assure that these requirements are (v~}
cAce-]cdcra{ cRepticu, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STRECT W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
.u . . _ , . - . _ _ . - _ _ , _ _ .._, _
83 1 complied with.
2 The-KEI quality assurance division, and the
() 3 Cincinnati. Gas & Electric Company quality assurance section work very closely together.
4 We occupy a common office
.O 5 building at the site. We are constantly communicating in
~
6' any areas of quality control deficiencies or other quality 7 assurance requirements.
e Wo have prepared a combined audit schedule, and g this is to ansure that the important elements of the OA-10 program arci addressed, not redundantly,1by Kaiser performing 31 an audit, and we immediately performing a duplicate audit.
12 So we have this combined schedule, which assures that all 13 elements.of the program are audited. .
() 14 Region III of the NRC-has conducted approximately 15 70 inspections at the site. Through these inspections they 16 have identified approximately 65 non-compliances. At no 17 time were we saddled with a non-compliance designated as a 18 violation.
19 A majority of our non-compliances are considered 20 infractions. The balance of them are considered deficiencies, 21 At present almost all of these infractions have 22 been addressed, resolved satisfactorily in accordance with 23 followup audits conducted by the Region III inspectors.
{}
24 Ilowever, there are still a few unresolved items which were 1
25 recently-documented but have not been addressed and closed cAce-]cclcta( cReporters, .One, 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET )
W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
84 1 out.
2 To date, the CGLE GA organization has performed (y 3 205 field audits and 112 vendor audits.
4 KEI has performed 312 QA audits and in excess of
(,_ 1 5 500 surveillances.
6 In addition, there have been 12 management audits 7 of the KEI program, and 16 management audits CG&E QA 8 program. .
9 Based on the above, it is felt that the Zimmer 10 project has a viable GA program, and that it is implemented 11 to a high degree of acceptability.
12 However, we have encountered several experiences 13 which at this time I'd like to relate to you.
() 14 The first one occurred in late February of 1976.
15 A former employee of Kaiser Engineers alleged 10 that Class-I nuclear materials had not rec 3ived proper 17 inspection by CG&E prior to installation.
18 He also alleged that materials purchased as 19 Class-II materials were being occasionally installed in 20 Class-I areas.
1 21 This incident received a lot of publicity.
22 Television stations came in, and the individual was inter- 1 1
1 s 23 viewed, and it was felt that in some cases many of the I g'L) 24 things that he had stated were misinterpreted or blown out (m, 25 of proportion by the news media. As a result, he was V
cAcc 'Tederaf cAcpo: leu, Snc.
444 NOMTH C APITOL. tiTFtECT W A f> HIN G TO N, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 l
85 1 inclined to resign as the quality assurance supplier QA 2 engineer.
(G,) 3 The NRC then condu'cted special investigations in
- 4 which they reviewed all these allegations. In each case,
+h V
5 both the one concerning qualification of the materials, and 6 also the use of Class II material in a Class I area, it 7 was found to be not in non-compliance with NRC requirements.
8 In 1976 the GAO decided to perform an audit at 9 the Zimmer project. Zimmer was chosen because of the to percentage completion that existed at the time. It was 11 a BUR, and also it was in Region III.
12 The GAO provided a team of three auditors, who 13 came in for a period of seven days, and individually inter-G l-) 14 viewed construction personnel at the site. . The interviewed 15 quality assurance personnel, management personnel, and 16 they did, at the completion of their audit, decide that 17 there were various areas that they identified as being 18 OA concerns.
19 These were then turned over to Region III, since ,
l l
20 it was felt that they were the most qualified to investigate 21 any allegations concerning OA, and they made a thorough 22 investigation and found that a majority of these either did not cover safety-related equipment, or were not construction
- ( ) 23 1
24 deficiencies, j
/~T 25 There were a couple others that the NRC was 1
(_/ I
\
cAceOcdcza[ cRepiten, $nc.
444 NORlH C APf1*0L STR EET WASHIN GTON. D.C. 2MBO t i (202) 347 3700
86 3
concerned about, and they, in turn, at a subsequent 2
inspection came in and assured that the allegations or the 3
items identified by the construction people were not of a 4
generic nature.
)
These were closed out, and we feel that there 5
w re n pr blems that were identified by the GAO.
6 Recently a former employee of a supplier of our 7
y g e Se d a le M & to 8
g the NRC. The letter was drafted and sent to architect-10 engineers that may or may not be concerned, rnd various g
other interest groups.
g He alleged that the materials that were being used in the fabrication of the cable trays were out of 33
() g specification, they were inferior, they did not meet the requirements of the specifications.
16 g
performing welding on the cable trays were unqualified and that they had supplied within those trays many wcld defects.
18 g
The NRC, in conjunction with ourselves, made a special investigation in which we went into the manufactur-er's facilities, reviewed all of his records concerning the materials, and we found that he had independently had 22 a materials analysis company make tests on all of the
(-]
v 73 g
materials, and they exceeded, in all cases, the specifica-c'l w/
25 tion requirements as far as structural strength, cAcc-]cde:a{ cRepmicu, Onc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STH EET W A S HIN G TO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
87 1
We also reviewed all of the weld records, the 2 qualifications of the welders. On our cable trays most of
() 3 the welds are done with resistant spot welding, and in 4 accordance with Section 9 of ASME it is not necessary for O b the welders to be qualified.
6 To further assure that there was no validity to 7 the allegation, CG&E took it upon themselves to extract 8 samples from cable trays at the site, and we took a total 9 of seven samples which represented different configurations 10 and different vintages of shipment.
11 From these samples we extracted materials samples 12 and sent them to an independent material analysis company 13 located in Cincinnati, and in all cases all of the seven
( 14 samples that were analyzed far exceeded the specification 15 requirements. .In fact, they were anywhere from 30 to 35 10 percent higher than spec requirements.
17 To validate that the welds were satisfactory, we 18 then took seven samples from these same pieces, and 19 destructively tested the welds in accordance with American 20 Wolding Society requirements. There were a total of 32 21 welds that were destructively tested, and all of them 22 demonstrated that the welds were satisfactory. In all cases
(} 23 the material, as opposed to the weld, the base material is 24 where the failure occurred.
() 25 We have had several other incidents at the site, c/lce. 9edera{ cAcpdcu, Snc.
AAA NOHTH C APITOL li1 REET W A f>HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202? 347-3700 m s__.
88 I three in nature, some of which are not at the site. !!owever ,
2 these are still under investigation, and we have complete
() 3 confidence that when these allegations are investigated that 4 it will be proven, similar to the others, that there's k
5 no validity to the allegations.
G We feel that we have a strong QA program that 7 complies with 10 CFR 50. We have complete support of our 8 management. And we are interested in safety as well as 0 anyone in the whole Cincinnati area.
10 This concludes my presentation.
11 CIIAIRMAN DENDER: Mr. Schwiers, I understand that 12 in the last month or so the motors for the recirc pumps 13 were taken out and a cleaning operation was conducted on 14 them.
15 What was the nature of that work?
16 MR. SCIINIERS : That's correct. This was a 17 generic problem that was identified by the supplier of the 18 motor. The bearings had failed at another site, and it was 19 decided that these bearings in our recirc pump should be 20 replaced.
21 There was complete surveillance during the 22 operation. The whole operation was performed by Kaiser 23 Engineers assisted by the supplier of the motor. Ile
(]}
24 provided the surveillance as well.
control did CG&E exercise
] 25 CIIAIR'iAN DENDER: What cace- 9ederal cRep:tcu. Dnc.
444 NDHTH C Af*4TOL STR E ET W ASHINGTON, D.C. F0001 (202) 347-3700 4
89 1 over that operation? Did it have any responsibility during 2 that time?
o
) 3 MR. SCHWIERS: We' felt that we had responsibility, S 4 because the motor had been shipped to us and we had taken
.)
5 custody of it. So we provided quality assurance at that 6 time, in addition to Kaiser Engineers, Kaiser functioning 7 to do the repair work.
8 As a complete quality assurance program, 9 procedures were developed and the quality assurance inspector i 10 of Kaiser Engineers assured that the procedures were complied 11 with and that there was proper documentation. And we, 12 ourselves, since ve had an interest in these motors, also 13 made audits and surveillance of the whole work activity.
,m,
)
14 CHAIRMAN BENDER: As I understand it, you are 15 presently revamping and redesigning some of the structural 16 restraints for the piping system.
17 MR. SCHNIERS: That's correct.
18 CHAIRMAN DENDER: What quality assurance actions 19 are.being taken in those areas?
20 MR. SCHNIERS: In those areas we have procedures 21 which, as there are additional materials being added to the 22 structural supports within the containment, we are verifying
() 23 by inspection that the procedures are complied with. We 24 are assuring that if any components are removed, that the n
) 25 balance of the components are properly supported. We have cNce Jehra( cReportcu, Snc.
444 NONTH C APITOL STREET W AS HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
90 1 surveyors who, prior to the time of a component's removal, 2 they identify and shoo't the elevation at which that component h 3 is, record it, and provide temporary supports. And after 4 the component is removed and replaced by some other component .
5 we in turn then verify that there has.been no degradation 6 in the quality of the original installation.
7 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Is this solely a function of 8 CG&E, or is Sargent & Lundy involved in it too?
9 MR. SCIIWIERS : No, it's a --
10 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: What organizations are 11 involved?
12 MR. SCIIWIERS : Sargent & Lundy is involved 13 because they have the design requirements.
14 Kaiser Engineers is involved because the drawings 15 that are submitted by Sargent & Lundy are implemented by to Kaiser Engineers.
17 And we control the drawings as they come in. We 18 assure that the proper revision is being used. We then have 19 our quality control people of Kaiser providing surycillance 20 as all of the work activities are being implemented.
21 And, again, we have quality assurance over and 22 above this.
O 23 We hav a f this documented as to what work 24 is being done and assurance that there's no detrimental 25 effect to any other components during this work activity.
cAcc 9edera{ cRepdcu, Snc.
444 NOftTH C APITOL. STR EET W Al.HtNGTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
91 1 He attempt to independently review at Sargent &
2 Lundy that the design is being properly documented, and
/ i 3 that there is backup documentation.
% _ .7 4 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: What action is there for the
-y 5 designers, who are Sargent & Lundy's engineers, to examine 6 the finished product?
7 liR. SCIIUIERS : They have no responsibility to e review any of the finished product. Their function is 9 strictly one of design.
10 It is our responsibility at the site to assure 33 that the design documents are implemented and are completely 12 complied with. Sargent & Lundy prepares the specifications 13 and the design drawings. .
(,)
ja CIIAIIUiAN BUNDER: So the end interpretation of 15 whether the design has been satisfied is determined by 16 CG&E, is that correct?
17 MR. SCIIWIERS : In conjunction with Kaiser 18 Engineers. Kaiser Engineers has the quality control.
- 9 CII7sIRMAN BENDER
- I understand that. But Kaiser 20 Engineers is a constructing organization.
21 MR. SCIIMIERS : That's correct.
22 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: For some reason or other that p
v 23 strikes me as kind of an odd situation, that you would put pa such great trust in the constructor to be sure that the
/N
~~
25 design is satisfied.
O cffce 9ederaf cRejmicu, Snc.
l 444 nonin cavirot ovncer W ADHINGTON, D.C. 20001 j (2o2) 347 3700
_.JL ____
92
'1" MR. SCIIWIERS ' 'The constructor has no responsibil-2 ity in'the design'.cffort. .It's the constructor's responsibil--
- 3. .'ity to implement:the design that is: presented'.in~the design
~
4 documents that are prepared . .' completely reviewed at the 5 architect-engineer's offices.
6 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: .Well, I understand that. But.
7 I've spent enough time with engineering work-to know that 8 every now and then it's important for the engineer to see 9 the results of what he designed.
10 Ilow is that dealt with?
11 MR. SCHNIERSt We do have Sargent & Lundy 12 engineers at the site, who are constantly, as minor problems 13 occur during this redesign and installation,.they are h 14 consulted to address these.
15 They also have their engineers who are interested 16' in all.of these items coming down and providing review.
17 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: How often do the engineers.come 18 down to provide review?
19 MR. SCHWIERS: At a minimum they come once a 20 month for a construction meeting. At the conctruction 21 meeting they do tour the site and look at various areas.
22 There are other occasions where, on request from
'23 our construction group, they are requested to come down 24 concerning maybe problem areas. And while they are
.25 addressing these they further tour the site and assure that c//cc 9edeta( cAcportcu, Soc.
444 NONTH C APITOL. STREET WA$HINGTON. D.C. P0001
. (202) 347-3700
93 I the design is being properly interpreted.
2 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Well, that's enough for now.
3 Is this normal for the_ Staff, to see this kind of 4 relationship between construction and engineering in one 5 of these plants? -
6~ MR. PELTIER: -I don't think I could answer that 7 question. s 8 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Would you mind having your 9 quality assurance' people tell us how the organization of '
10 this plant compared with others -- from that standpoint?
11 MR. PELTIER: Certainly.
12 CHAIRMAN BEMDER: It seems to me that.the 13 relationship between the engineering and the owner is 14 fairly loose and not as disciplined _as one might expect. ;
15 But that may be in the telling, and perhaps is an unfair to criticism. I think we probably don't understand it as well 17 as we ought to.
18 MR. SCI!WIERS : Well, Mr. Chairman, if there is 19' any other representative of CG&E -- Mr..Flynn, if you would 20 like to add anything more to this which I have not 21 addressed -- or Mr. Pruski?
22 MR. PRUSKI: I'm Dick Pruski, project manager 23 for the Zimmer project.
24 We do provide surveillance during installation,
.25 through our visits, as Mr. Schwiers has summarized. We cAcc. 9eclcza{ cRefwilers, .Onc.
444 NOftTH C APITOL ST7tEET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 (202) 347 3700
94 1 1
. 1 1 come out there monthly at a minimum. We have engineers !
2 coming out there to survey problems as they occur. We are l l
()- 3 providing startup assistance and preop testing assistance 4 when the systems do get turned over for operation, to assure O 5 that the systems are behaving as predicted in the analysis.
6 CilAIRMAN BENDER: You're the CG&E --
7 MR. PRUSKI: No, I'm the Sargent & Lundy repre-8 sentative.
9 CllAIRMAN BENDER: Thank you.
10 MR. SCHWIERS: There's one other thing that the 33 architect-engineer does. All of our preoperational tests 12 are conducted and the results of these preoperational tests 13 are reviewed by Sargent & Lundy. And this should assure O
(/ 14 that the system has been installed and does meet design 15 requirements. That is one of the functions of the preopera-16 tional tests and the documentation in that area.
17 CHAIRMAN BENDER: All right. Thank you very la much.
39 DR. ZUDANS: Just for a little clarification, 20 isn't Sargent & Lundy responsible at the end of installation 21 and after the acceptance to prove to you as an owner that 22 the components are the ones they designed for?
(~') 23 (Pause.)
%./
24 CIIAIRIMN BENDER: To ask it another way: Are
("N 25 they required to show that the system is performing as the O
cAcc-]cdcraf cReporter.s, Onc.
A44 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 1
\\
____ - _ - l
95 1 design intended it to perform?
2 MR. SCIIWIERS : Well, the tests, the preoperational 6)~J 3 tests that are conducted on it, themselves, assures that.
4 And Sargent & Lundy does review those.
\ v 5 In addition, we review those same test results.
6 Prior to the time they're submitted to Sargent & Lundy, 7 there's an in-house review by the station staff to assure 8 that the test results do meet the design requirements as 9 set up in the test specifications. The test specifications 10 are also reviewed. They're prepared initially by Sargent 11 & Lundy, but they are reviewed by the engineering group of 12 CG&E.
13 So that ue have an input, and we do verify that 73 x ,) 14 the test specifications do meet the requirements.
15 DR. PLESSET: Is there anybody from Sargent &
16 Lundy more or less continuously at the site?
17 MR. SCHUIERS: There are presently people at the 18 site almost on a continuous --
19 DR. PLESSET: More or less one engineer who 20 uould be responsible?
21 MR. SCHNIERS: By disciplines. But as far as 22 responsible for the overall engineering, no. In most cases
-,c3 23 this individual is assigned on a discipline basis, although
\v/
24 he has inmediate contact with the people at Chicago if he p 25 finds any problems.
- J cAcc 9edera{ crc /witeu, .Onc.
444 tJONTH C APITOL STR EET W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
96 1
DR. ZUDANS: Come back to the same question:
2 Who has the ultimate responsibility for the i 3 components to perform as designed --
- 4 DR. PLESSET: After installation.
\
l 5 DR. ZUDAHS: -- after it is installed. It 6 doesn't matter who supervises installation, who takes care 7 of quality assurance. The component is designed to do 8 certain things.
9 MR. SCIINIERS : The ultimate is probably combined 10 responsibility between the operations group who have tested 11 it, our own personnel who have reviewed the test results, 12 and also Sargent & Lundy.
13 DR. ZUDANS: But this is independent of your
./
k/ 14 test results. This is a very simple thing:
15 I design a pump to deliver so many gallons per 10 minute. When I install that pwnp and test it and it's 17 found that it delivers half of it, who has the responsibility la in the chain? Isn't that Sargent & Lundy?
10 MR. SCIINIERS : I think we're getting into an 20 area of responsibility --
21 DR. ZUDAHS: That's what I want to know.
22 MR. PRUSKI: Sargent & Lundy has responsibility.
f~'] 23 We reviewed the data to make sure that it met our require-v 24 ments.
) /
25 DR. ZUDANS: And if they don't meet the data, c 0ce 'Tedeta[ c A c p tiers, Onc.
444 NOF4TH C APITOL S1RFET W ASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 e
97 1 what --
2 MR. PRUSKI: We have to initiate changes to
) 3 accommodate the fix.
- _s 4 DR. ZUDANS: Okay.
b 5 MR. SCHNIERS: Well, in most cases if we had pro--
6 cured thoce.and had taken custody of the items that do 7 not meet the specification requirements, we would probably 8 have to pursue, based with Sargent & Lundy's assistance, 9 rectifying whatever the deficiency was that was so identified.
10 CHAIRMAN BENDER: We're not trying to raise 11 questions about whether the owner will or will not implement 12 things. We know that if something has to be done, the owner 13 is going to have to get it done. That's an obvious thing.
V 14 The point we're really addressing is that in 15 otber plants -- not in this one, and I don't want to suggest 16 that it may occur -- there have been occasions when the 17 results of tests have indicated that the des 3gn was erroneous 18 for some reason, or the equipment was deficient for some 19 reason, and it usually turns out that the engineering organ-20 ization has to make that determination, because the 21 operating people are not that well informed about the basis 22 for design, on occasions, and we wanted to be sure that that
- 23 mechanism for review was not ignored during this evaluation w;
24 of the quality of the end product.
25 MR. BORGMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say cAcc8cdera[ cReporters, $nc.
444 NORTH C A PITOL STHCET W A S HIN GTO N, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
98 ,
1 something here.
2- Cl! AIRMAN' BENDER: Yes.
3 MR. BORGMAN: There's sort of an implication here' 4 that perhaps.We're not closely' attuned to our architect-5 engineers.
6 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Well, the message isn't coming 1
7 across, let me put it that way. l 8 MR. BORGMAN: But we are. And there areLproced-9 ures established whereby each test has to be verified by 10 Sargent & Lundy before that system in going to be operated. :
11 All~the test specifications are'wricten by Sargent & Lundy, ;
12 - and the results of the test specifications we turn'back to 13 Sargent & Lundy for review before the system is actually 14 turned over for operation.
15 Sargent & Lundy is not a constructing AE. And I
16 I don't think there's any utility that's any closer to their 17 AD's than we are. In fact, there's some strength, I think, 18 to have another party really be doing their design. There 19 are a lot of questions raised. And we frel that we have 20 good quality control by virtue of having another party 21 really looking at their drawings and raising questions.
22 We have scheduled monthly meetinas. We have 1
free access to and from the site. And while Sargent &
(]) 23 24 Lundy does not have one man who is at the site saying they j([ 25. 'have the design responsibility, there's a constant flow of 1
c/lcc 9edera( cReporters, Onc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 . . l
99 !
- l 1 Sargent & Lundy engineers in and out of the site. We havo l 2 I guess half a dozen Sargent & Lundy people at the site
() 3 right now, reviewing hangars, reviewing' block wall 4 construction, things like t' V
5 So we have very c ' son with them.
O Sargent & Lundy dc c have, though, the day 7 to day inspection to see that the installation is in 8 accordance with their drawings. Kaiser is doing that, 9 reviewed by CG&E QA people.
I 10 But in the final analysis, Sargent & Lundy is 33 always on the job in some form as liaison. But~we acn't 12 have one man there. We have a constant flow of people with 13 the different responsibilitics and expertise as required.
O(J 14 And they also do review the test results to make 15 sure that their design has been correctly installed and 16 correctly implemented.
17 So I think Ve have very close liaison.
18 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Well, we won't belabor the 19 point.
20 MR. BORGliAN: I just wanted to clarif'J that.
21 CIIAIRl1AN DENDER: Arc there other questions of 22 Mr. Schwiers? If not, fir. Peltier, you're up again.
(") 23 MR. PELTIER: fir . Chairman, Committee Members, V
24 I have with me now fir. Ray Scholl, who is our electrical
{ 25 reviewer on this project, Mr. Sandy Israel, who is from our cdlce- 9edew{ cRepoilets, $nc.
Add NORTH C APiTOL STREET WASkiN CTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 L_ _ ,
- _ .. ~ _ _ _
100 "
1 Reactor Systems Group, Bob Bosnak, and John Kovacs,'from 2 Mechan'ical Engineering -- and I'think I-saw Walt Butler. <
3 ota or nue1er come ia2 O--
4 DR. BUTLER: Yes. '
O 5 MR. rELTIER: Way in the'back.
6 .So I hope that we'll be able to respond.to many 7 of your questions in their areas as we go through the 8 presentation, which will have to be quite rapid.
9 Walt, could you come up front, maybe, so you ,
10 could'get at a microphone and be'a'little more -- l 11 CHAIRMAN BENDER: You'd better bring your own :
i 12 chair with you, Walt. ;
13 (Laughter.) -
O i4 MR. rem 1ER, Weu, you can eeke my seee unen 15 I have to sit down again. t to I'll try to walk through-these as quickly as .
17 possible.
18 (Slide.) ;
19 The first issue that we have up there, dowatering-20 of compacted backfill, tle Staff's position on this matter 21 was stated in a letter to the Applicant dated April 24,.
22 1978.
23 The Applicant has committed to and is implement-24 ing the Staff's-position on this matter with the following 25 exceptions:
cAce 9eclcza{ cAeporters, Anc, 444 NONTH C APITOL STREET l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20o04 (2o2) 347 3700
]
101-1
'The position essentially calls for dowatering 2 of the compacted backfill under the seismic category f) 3 structures if it is necessary, and'provides equipment'for 4 doing that.
5 The exception --'the Staff's position stated in 2 o part-that the water level in the compacted backfill should 7 be maintained at or below the 457 foot mean sea level 8 clevation. The Applicant feels that the CP agreement was 0 that 480. feet mean sea icvel is adequate to prevent:
10 excessive floor pressure in the compacted backfill, which 11 is the problem here, and, therefore, that the 457 foot level 12 in overly restrictive.
13 The Staff has had contact with its consultant,
( 14 Dr. Alfred J. Hendron, to re-review this matter, and we do i 15 not have his responno yet. He hope to be abic to clear this 10 matter up in the very near future.
17 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Is the Applicant worried about 18 pumping the Ohio River?
i (Laughter.)
~
19 20 MR. PELTIER: I think that's what the Applicant 21 is concerned about right now, pumping the Ohio River.
22 On reactor vessel supports, the Staff has asked '
(} 23 the Applicant to provide enough details'to allow it, the 24 Staff, to independently verify the forces and moments
~25 on the reactor vessel resulting from a LOCA. Now, this cAcc. Jedera{ cReporters, $nc.
444 NOf41H C APITOL STR CCT WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
102 1 effort is underway, and we expect that this issue will be 2 resolved in the near future. We met with the Applicant just 3 last week to discuss the needed information. We don't
(')T
\_
4 anticipate any problems with a BWR plant in this area.
b 5 Now, a question was raised earlier'as to what our 0- position was, and I may have misunderstood, but I think that--
7 Bob, would you' address that as far as what we look for 8 mechanically as the acceptance criteria for vessel supports 0 on BWR's?
10 MR. BOSNAK: Bob Dosnak, NRC Staff, Mechanic.al 11 Engineering Branch.
12 The position is really that the Applicant perform 13 the analysis and meet our acceptance criteria.. The
() 14 acceptance criteria are those that are established in the is Code.
10 How, we've gone through the analysis, and we're 17 doing this independently for the Zimmer plant. This is our--
18 we're doing a check of these support questions for all of to the vendors, and Zimmer is the one for the BWR plants.
20 So we have used the Applicant-generated loads.
21 We intend later on, when the Staff has completed its genera-22 tion of the loads, to repeat the analysis with our own loads, rg 23 the Staff-generated loads.
V 24 Right at this point we are in good agreement with r- 25 what GE has provided with respect to their loads, but this
(>g cl{cc '.}calera( cReporteu, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WA SHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (20%) 347-3700 il
103 1 has been done independently.
2 I think that's the status of where we stand with n
C 3 respect to the BWR plants. They have been addressed before 4 Dr. Plesset's subcommittee.
G S DR. PLESSET: Are you becoming sympathetic to c' the GE method of dividing loads? For example, seismic and 7 pipe breaks and LOCA loads?
8 MR. BOSNAK: He are using the combination method-9 ology as expressed in our NUREG document, which is for 10 anything that has to do with a LOCA and a seismic event, 11 to use the SRSS methodology.
12 DR. PLESSET: 1 hat's what I was wondering, if 13 that's the procedure.. -
A V 14 DR. ZUDANS: You said you used loads generated 15 by the Applicant. Can you quantify whether these loads 16 that were originated by the Applicant did take fluid /
17 structures interaction into consideration, and whether or 18 not the ones that you originate yourself will do so?
19 MR. DOSHAK: This is being done by our Analysis 20 Dranch, and it's a matter of agreement on the blowdown code i
21 that's being used. '
22 I don't think at this point GE has considered 23 fluid / structure interaction. Perhaps the Applicant can 24 comment on that, if anyone can.
- ] 25 MR. BRINKMAN
- I think here we're talking c//cc 9edera{ cAcportcu, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHIN GTON. D.C. 2000t (202) 847 3700
104 I particularly, sir, about the annulus pressurization loads 2 that are imposed on the reactor vessel skirt. I'm not sure
') - 3 if we are all together on that, but --
4 MR. BOSNAK: As far as the PWR plants are L)'~'
5 concerned, this was the asymmetric pressure distribution on l
c the internals, where one of the vendors took into account 7 fluid / structure interaction.
8 Not all the vendors have done that, and we're 9 talking about inside the reactor vessel.
10 CI! AIRMAN BENDER: This is blowdown at the time --
11 if there is a break at the juncture, between the vessel and 12 the --
13 MR. BOSNAK: The annulus pressurization is the
) 14 cxternal effect.
15 DR. PLESSET: And that's what you've been 16 looking at for the most part, right?
17 MR. BOSNAK: Ucll, we have two groups within 18 the Staff. One is looking at the annulus pressurization, 19 the cavity effects, the external effects. The other group, 20 the blowdown and the internal.
21 DR. ZUDANS: Well, the answer to my question is 22 either yes or no.
23 CllAIRMAN BENDER: Well, but it.'s different,
/~~}
R ./
24 depending on which loading you're talking about. That's 25 What uc're --
clice- 9eclera( o9eporters, One.
444 NOf4TH C APITOL. ST REET W A S HI N GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
105 1 DR. ZUDANS: That is correct, but. an far as the
- 2. asymmetric supports are concerned, both loadin9n have to be O a taxea taeo coassaeratioa-4 MR. .BOSNAK: As far as we're conceruod, Staff is O 5 concerned - ~
6 DR. ZUDANS: The rigid boundary, corrocc?
7 MR. BOSNAK: The rigid boundary.
8 DR. ZUDANS: Okay.
9 CHAIRMAN BENDER: You got a satisfactory answer, 10 Dr. Zudans?
11 DR. ZUDANS: Yes, I expected it to ho rigid 12 boundary. I just wanted to make sure that thero might be 13 something that I didn't know about. -
h 34 CHAIRMAN DENDER: Even if the rest oE us aren't 15 totally clear, Dr. Zudans is satisfied. Let's 90 on.
10 DR. ZUDANS: Well, the point, that I think the '
17 Staff recognizes, is the fact that in addition to the cavity is pressures that apply to the supports, you also have to to consider the internally-generated loads. And t. hat's being 20 done by two different groups, I understood you to say?
21 MR. DOSHAK: That's correct.
22 DR. ZUDANS: Okay. I'm satisfied.
23 MR. PELTIER: Preservice and inservlee inspection 24 program, we've not quite completed our review in this area.
25 10 CPR Part 50 paragraph 50, Section ' 5. A. (g) (2) , requires cAce- 9ederal cReporters, Dne.
444 NOMTH C APITOL STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (102) 347-3700
106 4
1 that any exceptions to the rule be justified and, therefore, 4
2 to review the exemptions requested.
() 3 The Staff is reviewing the exemptions requested 4 and the justifications supporting those exemptions at this N.) 5 time. s 6' In addition to that, the Applicant has not 7 presented the Staff with an acceptable augmented inservice 8 inspection program for the detection of cracks in feedwater 9 and control rod drive return line nozzles and the plant 10 radii. We're waiting for this program to come in.
11 The Applicant plans to submit his revised 12 inservice inspection program required by Part 50, 5055 (a) (g) 13 (4) six months prior to commercial operation, and we will
() 14 look at it at that time.
15 The effects of recirculation pump trip in 16 over-pressurization analyses, in the earlier over-pressuriza-17 tion analysis by the Applicant the effects of the ATHS 18 pump trip were not included. Now this is the pump trip 19 where he gets his signal from the turbine building.
20 The Staff has asked the Applicant to include the 21 effects in their analysis. Included in the request was a 22 request for sensitivity analysis for the effects of initial
/^T - 23 operating pressures in the vessel dome, since technical V
24 specifications do not limit dome pressure to 1020 psig (3 25 assumed in the transient analysis.
y cAcc. 9edera{ cRepiters, Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STRECT W A S HINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
107 4
1 The Staff has also requested more pertinent 2 data on the operating experience and safety relief valve t')
is_j 3 qualification testing for thd valves in the operation and g- 4 the safety and AES modes. This information has not been V
5 received yet.
6 DR. PLESSET: Does this include some consideration 7 of failure to scram?
8 MR. PELTIER: No, this is not related to that 9 problem. This problem arises from the fact that the ATWS to scrams are included -- or the ATWS pump trip is included 11 in the Zimmer plant, but it was not included in the 12 analysis, and in some instances in the Staff's experience 13 these trips have made a difference in the results of the C
14 over-pressurization analyses.
P 15 Could you add anything to that?
10 MR. ISRAEL: This analysis just deals with the 17 simp,le over-pressure protection leading from transients, 18 to wit, that they have to meet 110 percent of the ASME 19 design code.
20 Previously they had not included in their analysis, 21 in the simplified transient analysis, the ATWS pump trip.
22 And our previous experience has indicated that this will
("h 23 increase the peak pressure for this type of transient with
%.) :
24 scram probably 10 or 20 psi.
() 25 DR. PLESSET: I was interested in whether, in
&cc 9edera{ cReporteu, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STRECT W A S HIN G TO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
108 1
connection with the Mark II, you're following the pressure 2 and temperature in the drywell.and the wetwell if you have
()
7s 3 a failure to scram?
- 4 MR. ISRAEL: I'm afraid I'm not able to address 5 that.
6 DR. PLESSET: Well, maybe we may hear --
7 MR. PELTIER: I'm not sure I understand the 8 question. This is an abnormal transient situation we've 9 been talking about here.
10 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Let me try to clarify the-11 point. I suspect it's a little premature, but, nevertheless--
12 DR. PLESSET: Yes, it is.
13 CIIAIRitAN BEMDER: But the question has to do with
) 14 the matter of, if, in the end the BUR's go to a concept in 15 which the ATWS occurs with a recirc pump trip and the 16 blowdown is allowed to go into the containment suppression 17 pool, what temperatures will develop in the suppression 18 pool, and how will they be monitorod?
19 Is that the question?
20 DR. PLESSET: That's really it.
21 CHAIRMAN BENDER: And I suspect it's premature i
22 to answer that question. l J
23 DR. PLESSET: It may well be.
24 CHAIRMAN DENDER: As a matter of fact, I think
{) 25 that's not necessarily the generic solution. So I don't cAcc- 9eclcta[ cSejmiten. Onc. l 444 N Of tTH CAPITOL STRECT WA S HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 4 - . , _ . - _ _ _
109 1 want to aggravate the problem at this point.
2 MR. ISRAEL: While we're on the subject of ATWS,
) 3 I believe the Staff is planning to make recommendations to
, 4 ACRS in December as to what our final position is.
5 J'
5 CIIAIRMAI! DE!1 DER: We look forward to it with 6 bated breath.
7 (Laughter.)
, 8 DR. PLESSET: I might say, Sandy, that GE has 9 made some calculations on this question that I raised a 10 little bit prematurely, but I don't know if they apply to 11 Mark II's. That was what I really --
12 MR. ISRAEL: I'm not aware of that.
13 DR. PLESSET: Okay. He'll pass it.
!) 34 CIIAIRfiAll DEI 1 DER: Go ahead, Mr. Peltier. We are 15 running behind schedule.
10 tiR . PELTIER: Protection of motor / generator sets.
37 This is the Hatch-2 problem.
18 On August 11, 1970 the Staff advised the 19 Applicant by letter that the notor/ generator sets for the 20 reactor protection system power supply nay not satisfy 21 criterion 2 of the general design criteria. A seismic]y 22 induced failure of voltage regulation, accompanied by a
(~' 23 single failure in the motor generator set could cause a V
24 sustained over voltage, causing ultimately loss of the (l 25 capability to scram.
w ,'
cAce-]cdcra{ cReportcu, .One.
444 NORTH C APITOL STH EET W A S HI N GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
110 1 The Applicant has committed to the generic 2 resolution of this concern, but may have to request an lT a
3 exemption to the rules if the corrective measures arc ~not 4 implemented by fuel loading date.
)
\
5 Physical separation and isolation. During the G Staff's r; view and its site visit, several problems were 7 disclosed with respect to physical separation electrical 8 independence between redundant safety circuits and non 9 safety circuits.
10 The Staff reviewed this matter against the 11 construction permit commitment. The Applicant has committed 12 to modifying circuits in the field in a manner satisfactory 13 to the Staff. .
c) 14 IIe has also committed to a program for the 15 qualification of electrical isolaters used in circuits 16 between safety and non-safety systens.
17 Staff is in the process of reviewing these 18 matters, but will not be able to complete its review until 19 the issue of the use of non safety grade systems for 20 mitigation of abnormal transients is resolved.
21 Fire protection. The Applicant has responded 22 to all of the Staff's position with respect to fire protection. The Staff is reviewing those responses to
(~3 23 L.)
24 assure that the positions have been mot.
25 In a few areas, such as floor, ceiling and wall cAcc. 9edera{ cReporters, Onc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STR ECT W A S HINGTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 l l
111 1
barrier penetration seals, the Applicant has proposed 2 methods that are not yet supported by test data to sub-
- % )3 3 stantiate the fire resistance ratings required. We hope 4 to be able to clear this matter up in the very near future.
,m t :
5 Fire protection, as a question of emergency 6 planning, I think was mentioned this morning. There was a 7 question on that. The Staff has completed its review of 8 fire protection as part of the emergency planning, and I 9 believe that's contained in Section 13 of the SER, 10 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Have all of the changes that 11 the Staff believed are needed been agreed upon between the 12 Staff and the Applicant?
13 MR. PELTIER: Except those ones that I've just
,v) 14 mentioned. The implementation is nearly complete, I 15 believe. But the Applicant is proposing in some areas some 16 penetration seals, using materials whose fire barrier 17 rating has not been substantiated by adequate testing, in 18 the Staff's opinion.
39 So we will have to go over that again with them, 20 and.they'll have to take some corrective action to get the 21 data or use something else.
22 Plant and support staffing. During its review
- 23 and in discussions with I&E, Recion III, the Staff became (m) v 24 concerned about the adequacy of the Applicant's plant and ;
1 25 support staffing, particularly for preoperational and startup l
c0ce- 9edezaI cAeporters, Onc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET WA SHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 847 3700
112 1 test programs.
2 In addition, the Applicant has not shown the
()
-3 3 position of maintenance supervisor, and minimum qualifications 4
have not been met for the position of reactor engineer.
t t V 5 We have discussed the matter with the Applicant, 6 and he has an effort underway to upgrade his plant and 7 support staffing, and to fill the open key positions.
8 We will continue to follow this program, partic-9 ularly with regard to the preoperational testing and the 10 startup test program.
11 Industrial security. The Applicant has 12 submitted a complete revised industrial security plan, and 13 the Staff is reviewing it, as 11r. Schott mentioned this
/"')
v ja morning. There are a few minor exceptions to the Staff's 15 position.
10 For example, the Applicant's approach to 17 protection against the insider is weaker than the Staff's 18 position and is not acceptable.
gg Staff plans to make its site visit in December, 20 and hopen to resolve any remaining issues shortly thereafter.
21 The Applicant's plan, however, is basically acceptable.
22 (Slide.) !
(
,, 23 Design for pool dynamic loads. The Applicant I j
w/ '
24 has reassessed his structural and piping and equipment !
l 25 systens to accommodate pool dynanic load. These systems i.)
c0cc. ]cdcra{ cReportcu, Onc.
444 NONTH CAPITOL STREET W A S HI N G TON, D.C. 20001 i
(202) 347-3700
113 1 fall into three categories:
2 The first one is those which meet Code stress
() 3 limits when dynamic loads are combined by the absolute sum 7 4 method.
! \
s'^'/
5 Second are those which meet Code stress limits a when dynamic loads are combined by the SRSS method where 7 applicable, but not when combined by the absolute sum method.
8 The third category are those which do not meet 9 the Code stress limits when dynamic loads are combined by 10 either method.
13 Now, for case 3 the Applicant is modifying the 12 system to meet Code limits when dynamic J oads are combined 13 by the absolute sum method. ~
() 14 For case 2, the Applicant has asked the Staff for 15 relief n a case-by-case basis. Just last . . . I guess it 16 was the 19th --
17 VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: A week ago.
18 MR. PELTIER: Was it a week ago? -- the Applicant ig made his presentation to us with regard to those areas 20 where he would be requesting relief, and he's completed his 21 reanalysis by a very high percentage -- I don't know exactly 22 what the numbers are. But we are expecting to be able to
/T 23 look at these areas where he has requested relief, and
'\-)
24 reach our final position on those matters by the end of the I~'t 25 year, I should hope, J
clice. ]cdcraf cReporters, Onc, 444 N O ft TH C APITOL STFtEET W AS HIN GTON. D.C. 20001 (iO2) 347 3700
114 1 DR. ZUDANS: 11ay I have a question on this 2 point?
'D- 3 CHAIRfWT BENDER: Go ahead.
v._)
4 DR. ZUDANS: As I read in another report, it is 7-5 Staff's position now that you will allow SRSS combination 6 of SSE and LOCA loads.
7 What is your position with respect to SRV loads, 8 combined with the others?
9 MR. BOSNAK: Currently, we are requiring -- if 10 someone came in and asked today, such as you're doing today, 11 our current position is the absolute sum.
12 DR. ZUDANS: On SRV?
) 14 DR. ZUDAMS: With SSE and LOCA?
15 fir . BOSHAK: We're talking about SRV and the 16 pool swell and an ODE. For instance, a seismic event.
17 These are more probable, and we haven't completed 18 our position on it. We are continuing to look at it. We 19 expect -- we hoped at one time to be able to say that our 20 position will be SRSS, but it is not yet at this time.
21 That's why we've asked the Applicant to look at 22 the absolute sum. In other words, to evaluate it for p 23 responses combined absolutely.
t/
24 DR. ZUDANS: Your group is headed by Mr. Huntling?
/ 25 That's the sane group, the working group?
v o@cc- 9eclcta( cReporters, .Onc.
4A4 NOR T H C APITOL STREET W A S HI N GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
115 1 MR. DOSNAK: No, that group is no longer in 2 existence. The group that prepared the NUREG document has
{}
3 not really been dissolved, but they're not meeting as a 4 group as it was previously constituted.
k
5 We do have within the Staff people that were on 6 that original group that are looking at the overall problem.
7 We have thesconsultant, Brookhaven National Lab, which is 8 providing on a technical assistance contract basis, some 9 additional information.
10 We don't expect this to be in place for several 11 months.
12 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Thank you, Bob. That's 13 enough on that. We need to move along. -
() 14 MR. PELTIER: I should add that in the structural 15 area the Staff still does have sone outstanding questions 16 on the closure report, which deal primarily with fluid /
17 Structure interation, and we have not received Applicant's 33 response to our request for information in that area.
19 (SlidC-)
20 Seismic qualification of mechanical and electrical 21 equipment. This is another big area. The Staff is still i
22 in the process of reviewing the qualification of mechanical 1
23 and electrical equipment for seismic and operability under l (O-)
24 faulted conditions.
rw 25 The equipment qualification tests and analyses for l N-] l cAcc. 9cdera{ cRepitcu, Onc.
444 NOHTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 2oool (to2) s47 37oo I
116 1
both the nuclear steam supply system and the balance of plant 2 equipment are being reviewed against our current acceptance
{ ') 3 criteria to determine if any equipment or components need to 4 be requalified, retested.
i )
5 The nuclear steam supply system equipment is being 6 reviewed on a generic basis with the General Electric Company, 7 and the Staff has made one on-site visit to review the a balance of plant equipment.
9 MR. DOSNAK: Irv, for the benefit of the Subcom-10 mittee I think I ought to add that seismic is really a ti misnomer. What we're really doing is qualification for the 12 vibratory loads that the equipment is going to have to 13 operate under. We're talking about not only seismic, but (m) 14 the hydrodynanic vibratory loads.
15 CHAIRMAN BENDER: We are pleased to see that you 16 have finally recognized that that's the right way to qualify 17 equipment.
ja Go ahead.
19 MR. PELTIER: Conservatism in transient analyses.
20 In a letter dated December 7, 1977 the Staff 21 requested that the Applicant provide analysis of the Peach 22 Bottom transient turbine trip test performed in April of
,e 23 1977, and to provide a description of any additional k-)'
24 confirmatory tests planned to assess the conservatism of
-; 25 the transient analysis methods.
9
/
c0ce- 9edeta[ CSepoticu, Snc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STHi"EY W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
117 1
The Applicant responded on February 21, 1978 2
saying that he preferred to commit to the General Electric g3 3 Company generic resolution of this problem.
u) 4 The General Electric Company approach involves
. N
(_J 5 the development of a new analytical method, namely the 6 ODIN code and in some planned future turbine trip transient I
7 test.
8 The Staff is reviewing this generic effort.
9 Low-pressure coolant injection diversion effects 10 on ECCS and long-term cooling:
11 In order to increase the allowable bypass of the 12 suppression pool during a small break LOCA, the Applicant's 13 design automatically diverts the low-pressure. coolant (o^') 14 injection flow to the wetwell sprays after ten minutes.
15 The Staff has requested by letter dated October is i
10, 1978, that the Applicant analyze the effects of the i
17 f LPCI diversion on ECCS and long-term cooling to show that 18 core temperature increases, if any, are acceptable.
19 j The Applicant has not responded as yet, although '
20 l informal discussions have disclosed that increased core 1 i i 21 l temperatures are probably acceptable.
1 22 i CHAIR"JW DEMDER: Let's see if we understand [
, 23 l the issue:
/ ,)
/
! l
i
~
I 24 l The problem here is that when the cooling is
_ 25 diverted temperatures tend to go up? What is the issue? I i
i s' c0cc. ]cdeza[ cAcportcu, Sn:.
dad NORTH C APtTOL STATET W A SHI N G TO N, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
118 1
MR. ISRAEL: Yes. The very small breaks -- when 2
you have LPCI diversion with a break in the high pressure
, ") 3 core spray line, you tend to get an increase in tempcratures, a
4 probably around a couple hundred degrees.
(8 i )
x- 5 How, for this specific plant the peak clad 6 temperature for the large break is something like about 7 1800 degrees F., and peak clad temperatures that the 8 Applicant has calculated with LPCI diversion of 10 minutes 9
for a .02 square foot break is something like 1725 degrees F.
10 We have requested additional infonnation of the 11 Applicant to justify that, yes, he has analyzed the worst 12 set of conditions as far as a LPCI diversion is concerned.
13 CHAIRMAN BENDER: But you're measuring this
(~')
v 14 against a 2200 degree limit? :
15 MR. ISRAEL: Yes, we're significantly below the .
16 2200 degree limit.
17 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Thank you. '
18 MR. PELTIER: I might add here that when Mr.
19 Brinkman was asked about the possible bypass paths around 20 the vetwell -- or I should say around the suppression pool, 21 he left out the hydrogen recombiner, which also has a !
22 potential bypass. The Applicant has analyzed that and the es 23 Staff has analyzed that particular bypass path.
~-)
24 Pool dynamic loads and load combinations:
25 The Staff issued its Mark II containment acceptance
,c 3 :
%-) ?
I c/lce-]cdczaf cAclwriets, Snc.
d44 NORTH C APITOL S T Ft E E T W A S HI N GTO N, D.C. 20001 (JJ2) 347-3700
119 1
criteria to the lead Mark II owners on September 14, 1978.
2 The load evaluation report was given to the Committee on r] 3 September 27, 1978, in draft, and I understand that now 4 hau been published as a NUREG and is between covers.
5 On October 19, 1978 --
0 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Does that report have a number 7 yet? The last report I saw didn't have a number.
8 DR. BUTLER: NUREG-0487.
9 CHAIRMAN BENDER: 0487?
10 DR. BUTLER: Right. It's dated in October.
11 CHAIRMAN DENDER: If it were final, it might 12 become the most discussed document in all the NRC history.
13 MR. PELTIER: On October 19 the Staff met with j 14 the Mark II owners and agreed to review a very limited 15 number of criteria on the basis of new information. The 16 Staff hopes to reach its final position by the end of the 1
17 year.
18 The generic Mark II program will be discussed 19 with the Committee, I believe, in San Francisco at the 20 end of this month.
21 Safety-related display instrumentation:
22 The Staff has identified some unacceptable designs
,- 23 in the area of safety-related display instrumentation. For
\ )
w/
24 example, the rod display power source.
m 25 The Applicant has proposed acceptable modifications J
cl/cc 9eclcra( cRcjwifers, Snc.
444 NOftTH C APITOL STH EET W AS HI N G TO N, D.C. POOOt (202) 347 3700
120 1 in most areas, but the Staff cannot complete its review in 2 this area until the issue of use of non safety grade equip-
{} 3 ment for the mitigation of abnormal transients is resolved.
4 All other instrumentation required for safaty is g
5 in that same category. Until the Staff reviews and final 6 position is reached on the use of non safety grade equipment 7 for the mitigation of abnormal transients, the Staff cannot 8 complete its review of all other instrumentation required 9 for Safety.
10 It will be necessary to identify the systems in 11 this category completely prior to completing the Staff 12 review.
13 Prooperational and startup test prcgram:
i (nj 14 The Applicant has not concluded tests in his 15 preoperational test program to demonstrace the capability 16 of the essential loads to operate at the DC system's design 17 basis minimum voltage 1cVel. The Applicant has tried to 18 justify this omission, but the Staff finds the justification 19 deficient.
20 That is the only area that is open in the 21 preoperational test program.
22 Ilowever, the startup test program, the Applicant 7x 23 has just recently submitted all of the revised abstracts R.)
24 for the startup tests resulting from a late revision to the J~m, 25 startup test program by General Electric Company. The Staff v'
cIlce- 9ecl era [ cReporter.s. .Onc.
444 NORTH C APITOL S f H r. E f W ASHINGTON. D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
121 1
is in the process of reviewing the startup test program now.
2 CHAIRMAN BENDER: One question. Is the startup 7
(_) 3 test program for this reactor likely to be grossly different 3 4 than that for Hatch, for example, Hatch-l?
L) 5 MR. PELTIER: It is my understanding that it has 6 undergone considerable revision, and I don't know whether 7 that revision is more form than substance.
8 I could not answer that question now, but perhaps 9 the Applicant could shed some light on that.
10 CHAIFBmN DENDER: Mr. Flynn, without going into 11 detail -- you're going to have an opportunity to respond to 12 these things -- could you state quickly? You've been 13 looking at what Hatch has donc, and it would'be interesting m
f i
'~' 14 to know how your plant might differ in a general way.
15 MR. FLYNN: Yes, sir. I'd like to have Jim 16 Schott address that.
17 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Short, Mr. Schott.
18 (Laughter.)
19 I just want to get a feeling for it.
20 MR, SCHOTT: I'm not quite familiar with the 21 total Hatch design. I don't think our plant differs that 22 greatly, but we have I think one feature that that plant
[~') 23 does not have, in that we have three redundant electrical v
24 divisions, each supplied by a 125-volt separate DC system.
() 25 We have two 250-volt DC systems, and two 2448-volt DC c0ce- 9cdeza{ cRepoticu, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A SHI N GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 l
122 1
systems.
2 So from the point of view of basic design, I
'^'
i 3 think we have a superior plant.
4 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, that's not quite the 7 3
( !
5 point I was trying to make. I was just trying to establish 6 that, considering the fact that there's already procedent 7 for a startup program, is there something radically different 8 between what you might be planning and what was planned for G Hatch?
10 MR. SCHOTT: To my knowledge our program is not 11 radically different.
12 CHAIRMAN BENDER: So if there are any differences 13 they're probably minor? Is that a fair assessment?
() 14 MR. SCHOTT: That is a fair assessment.
15 CHAIRMAN BENDER: And the debate might not be all 16 that important, then.
17 Go ahead, Mr. Peltier.
18 MR. PELTIER: I'm at the end of my summary of 19 the Staff's situation on the open issues at this time.
20 CHAIRMAN BENDER: When are you going to tell us l
21 about -- oh, Mr. Butler is going to tell us about whether 22 it's a good idea to cut off the downcomers.
/m 23 MR. PELTIER: Yes, we're going to get to him --
L]
24 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Okay, we'll wait for Mr. Butler.
,m 25 MR. PELTIER: -- as soon as I get a chance to L_)
cAce- 9ede a[ cRepdeu, Snc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A S HI N GTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
123 1 talk to him at lunch, I hope.
B 2 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: All right. We won't impose
) 3 upon him unfairly.
4 Let's see, it's 11:51 now. How much can you
~
5 cover before lunch, Mr. Flynn, and how much after lunch?
6 MR. FLYNN: You have lunch now scheduled for 7 1:00 o' clock. With luck, and few questions from the 8 Subcommittee, we can be finished by 1: 00.
9 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, let me say that I had 10 thought we would break around 12:30, because some of us have 11 not yet checked out of the motel and we're imposing on the 12 hospitality of the place.
13 So, do you want to go until 12:30 and then break?
,-m u) 14 MR. FLYNN: That's agreeable to us.
15 CIIAIRMAN BENDER : Why don't you go ahead, then?
16 MR. FLYNN: All right.
17 Basically, we're in agreement with the Staff's 18 positions, but we do want to make a few clarifying remarks.
19 Let's look at the first ona, backfill and 20 dowatering. The only difference we have there is the level 21 at which we begin pumping.
22 Unless the Subcommittee has additional questions
(^'; 23 or wants clarification of the differences in our positions, v
24 we're prepared to move off that one onto the next item.
25 CHAIRMAN BENDER: No, just go ahead. We'll
}
c/lcc. 9edera( cReporters, Onc.
444 NOft TH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTO N D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
124 1 assume you'll work it out, and we think you will.
2 MR. FLYNN: All right.
^
/ )
uj 3 .On the containment design and vessel supports, 4 I'd like to ask Mr. Brinkman to address the Staff's position
() 5 on that.
6 MR. BRIMKMAN: I think Bob Donnak fairly well 7 summarized the situation. I would like to point out that 8 the analyses have been done on the reactor vessel support 9 systems, the results have been submitted, and the values 10 calculated have been accepted.
11 The techniques used in making the vessel support 12 analyses have been reviewed, and I think it's fair to say I 13 that the techniques used have been demonstrated to be
() 14 conservative. Particularly the mass release rate, which is 15 the primary input to this whole function, has been demon- l I
16 strated to be more conservative than the NRC acceptance i t
17 criteria itself, considerably more conservative. l 18 I don't think there's any disagreement between l i
10 us and the Staff uith what we've done. I think -- i f
20 CHAIRMAN BENDER: You think it's just a matter
- i i
21 of getting it reviewed?
l 1
1 22 MR. BRINKMAN: I think it has been reviewed and >
.r 's 23 accepted, because it's stated as accepted in the SER. I i O
24 think what we're trying to do -- I think what's being done r '5 is the NRC is trying to develop independent calculations for Lj y cAcc- 9cdcra{ cAcfmicu, Onc.
444 NORTH C APITO L STREET W A f, HIN G TO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
125 1
confirmation of what we've done.
2 CHAIRMAN DENDER: Well, you may very well be right ,
^
) 3 But you don't want to pursue that any further?
.,, g You think --
4 MR. BRINKMAN: No, I just want to make the po.4nt i
)
5 that I don't think, from our point of view, this is an ir 6 to delay our plant over.
7 CHAIRMAN DENDER: Well, we're not doing more than 8 just trying to define the circumstances.
9 DR. ZUDANS: Mr. Chairman, there was a statement 10 by Staff just a few minutes ago that they do not have the 11 information yet to evaluate the vessel supports.
12 MR. DOSNAK: We have not generated our own 13 loads based on the Staff's mass energy release calculations 14 and based on the Staff's generation of the asymmetric 15 external pressure loads.
10 CHAIRMAN DENDER: As I understand it, the point 17 is that the Staff is planning to do its own analysis?
18 MR. BOSNAK: That's correct.
19 CHAIRMAN DENDER: --
as a way of evaluating !
t 20 independently what the Applicant is doing.
21 MR. DOSNAK: We've done it independently, using 22 our own computer codes with the Applicant's input, and i
em 23 we're going to repeat it --
) :
24 MR. PELTIER: Let me see if I can clear this up, L 25 Mr. Chairman.
U ll ckcc- ]cdc:a[ cRepoz/eu, $nc. {
444 NORYH C A PITOL STREET j
W ASHINGTON, D.C. P0001 (202) 347 3700 l
n a a. . . p.. -.+ a . ~ , ,- ,..ae - .a > c .
- . a 126 1- What the' Staff is looking at now is the method- 1 2 by which you convert the pressures in the subcompartments, 3 and so on,'to moments and-forces on the reactor vessel. So
'4 it's the mechanics of walking through the analysis. .
,O.
v 5 There are no further questions with regard to 6 mass energy release or the acceptability of the subcorpart-
-7. ment pressure analysis. It's just how do you get to forces 8 and moments on the vessel.
9 CIIAIRMAN . BENDER: The loading model?
10 MR. PELTIER: The loading model, yes.
. 11 DR. CATTON: I believe when GE made-the presenta-12 tion at Los Gatos a year or so ago there were some questions 13 about how the pressure buildup in the annulus was' calculated, 14 and I've not seen any documentation or answers to the 15 questions that were raised at that time.
16 Maybe you could refer me to one of the reports, 17 and save time at this Committee meeting.
18 CllAIRMAN BENDER: Well, why don't we leave it 10 that you'll try to?
20 MR. PELTIER: Yes.
21 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Go ahead.
22 MR. BRINKMAN: If you're interested in how the
. 23 pressure traces are done within the annulus, that's done 24 by Sargent & Lundy. It's not done by General Electric.
25 The techniques used on Zimmer were reviewed in considerable.
cAce 9edera[ cAepoticu, $nc.
d44 NORTH C APITOL. STF4ECT -
WASNINGTON. D.C. 20000 (202) 347-3700
127 1
detail. Please tell me if I'm wrong, but it's my 2.mpression 2 that Sargent & Lundy techniques used to calculate the o
i l 3 pressure matrix were found acceptable. Sensitivity studies 4 were done by Sargent & Lundy to demonstrate that the n
V 5 technique used by them was not sensitive and was conserva-6 tive.
7 DR. PLESSET: Ucll, I think we want to see that 8 report, if we could.
9 MR. BRINKMAN: Okay.
10 DR. PLESSET: So that can be done, then?
11 liR. BRINRiiAN : Yes, it can be. That information 12 has been submitted.
13 Ray, do you have the report title'for that?
q ,
.'V 14 VOICE: I think it was a series of questions, but 15 I don't have the question numbers. Do you remember, Marv, 16 what those question nunbers were?
17 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, let's leave it that 18 you'll look it up. We can't -- having that information now 19 won't help us much, anyway.
20 t1R. BRINRMAN: Question 110.28 I'm told.
21 CHAIR?iAN BENDER: Go ahead, Mr. Flynn, with the 22 next item.
IV 23 fir. FLYNN: The next two items, qualification of 24 electrical and mechanical equipac.at and component operabil-l 25 ity, we have had the NRC review which conducte.1 an audit cAce- 9edera{ cRcjwiterx Onc.
Add NORTH C APITOL fiTREET W AbHINGTON. D.C. 2000t (202) 347-3700
128 1 of the qualification reports for the balance of plant 2 equipnent this past August, between August 14 and 17.
) 3 The team completed the audit for half of the 7~s 4 reports which were selected, and another meeting will be V
5 held to complete the audit for the rest of the reports.
6 The electric equipment and instrumentation 7 constituted the completed half of the reports.
8 The qualification reports of mechanical equipment e are available, and constitute the unaudited half.
10 The qualification reports were found to be 11 satisfactory by the team and no measure of disagreement of 12 outstanding items were pointed out.
13 He believe that the rest of the a6dit will result q
x s' 14 in a similar conclusion.
15 He asked the Staff point-blank when they had to completed their review if they were satisfied, and their 17 answer was yes.
18 CIIAIRMA!1 BENDER: Very good.
19 MR. FLYN!J : The next item, offects of recircula-20 tion pump trip, I'd like to ask Mr. Dick Johnson from GE 21 to make a statement on that.
pp MR. JOHMSON: I'd like to just clarify that when IN 23 Mr. Peltier was reviewing this issue he mentioned that it U
24 was the recire pump trip from the turbine building. This is not the one that we're analyzing. It's the ATUS --
) 25 l
clice 9edera{ cRepzicu, Snc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STRLET W AS H6NGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
129 1 'ilAIRMAN BENDER:
, We can't hear you. You'll have 1
2 to get a mike, and repeat a certain amount of what you've r *
( 3 said.
4 MR. JOIINSON : I'd just like to clarify that'when O
V 5 Mr. Peltier was talking about this particular item, he 6' indicated that the trip that we were looking at was the 7 one from the tiurbine building. As a matter of faut, we're 8 looking at the ATWS scram ->- the high pressure scram from 9 the MSRV closure.
10 CHAIRMAN BENDER: That's the usefulness of this 11 meeting. The Staff and Applicants talk to each other once 12 in awhile.
13 MR. PELTIER: I acknowledge my mis-statement. It A
V 14 is the ATUS trip we're talking about here.
15 MR. JOIINSON : That's right, to evaluate the 16 effects of this particular event on the vessel pressure.
17 CIIAIRMAN DENDER: All right. So this is when 18 the reactor is not scrammed, and you're determining the 19 pressure that it will rise to initially --
20 MR. JOlINSON : That's right.
21 CIIAIRMAN DENDER: -- when the recirc pumps trip?
22 MR. JOl!NSON: Yes.
23 CI! AIRMAN BENDER: Very good. We're on the right 24 wavelength again.
A 25 MR. JOllNSON : Now, there was just one other d
cIlce 9eclcza{ cAcjwitcu, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
130
, item of clarification, and that is with regard to ' ? RPSMG 2
sets Mr. Peltier also indicated that the Applicant 1
]e 3 adopted the GE generic position, and we have submitted that 4
,oi for Staff review. We are expecting them to review that V 5 and approve it before we get to the detail design, but we 6
believe it could be completed prior to operation of the 7
plant.
O CHAIRMAN BENDER: Thank you.
9 MR. FLYNN: In that regard, we're waiting for 10 the Staff's review, and we will make a commitment, one'way 11 or the other, to that GE generic letter.
12 The next item would be the Peach Bottom test, 13 the conservatism in transient analysis. Mr.'Brinkman will k 14 address that.
15 MR. BRINKMAN: I think the report presented by 16 Mr. Peltier was, again, -- we generally agree with it.
17 I would like to clarify a few additional points.
18 We have discussed this with General Electric 19 Company, who is providing the generic ODIN code analv-is.
20 They inform us that all the test data from the Peacu Bottom 21 tests and all of their ODIN documentation has been submitted, 22 '
is actively under review in the Staff, and that a final SER 23 issuance on the ODIN code is anticipated now for November.
24 If this is issued in November per the current O
v 25 schedule, there will be adequate time to double check it clice 9ederal cRepitcu, $nc.
444 NOFtTH C APITOL STREET W A S HIN C. TON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
131 1
with the Zimmer calculations prior to startup.
2 MR. FLYNN: Would you like to address in-service 1
(^')
~s 3 inspection while you're on Beach Bottom?
l l
4 MR. BRINKMAN: Again, we acknowledge that the l
5 in-service inspection final program has, indeed, not been 6 submitted. I did want to clarify that we have had repeated 7 meetings with the Staff, we have discussed what we are doing, 8 what we intend to do, the writeups are under active prepara-9 tion now, and are scheduled for submittal prior to the end 10 of the year.
11 We are committed to do these inspections in 12 accordance with AS!!E Section ll, with various Reg Guides 13 which require augmented inspections, and in accordance with
() 14 10 CFR 5055 requirements.
15 We have already submitted our preservice 16 inspection plan. In fact, preservice inspection programs are 17 well underway at the plant. I don't foresee this dragging 18 out to become a startup delaying problem.
19 MR. FLYMN: If there are no questions, we'd like 20 to ask Herb, then, to address the comments on the Mark II 21 acceptance criteria.
22 MR. BRINKMAN: We have had meetings on the Mark II
,e s 23 generic program with the Staff, as was pointed out. We are i]
24 under the impression that the Staff is considering acceptance
,r x, 25 of SRSS for those cases which can meet certain selected w) c0cc 9cclcra[ cRepodcu, Onc.
444 N O F4TH C AFalTOL STff E ET W A S HI N G TO N, D.C. POOOf (202) 347 3700
132 1 criteria, including safety valves.
L 2- The Mark II group was requested to respond to
{} 3 the Staff, identifying which of the criteria would be ;
4' acceptable to them if SRSS were approved by the Staff.
5 That information has been furnished, and it does s
6 result in a situation where the Mark II owners group is able 7 to accept the bulk of the criteria.
8 There are' active' programs underway with.the 9 Mark II owners group to resolve and bring to conclusion to those areas which have not been fully accepted by the owners 3 11 group.
12 There are, in fact, meetings going on by the 1 13 Mark II owners group this week with the Staff in an effort I
() 14 to' resolve those remaining items.
15 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Have you seen this NUREG report !
16 that's been identified here today?
17 MR. BRINKMAN: No, sir, I have not.
18 CHAIRMAN BENDER: It would be wise to get a look 19 at it.
20 MR. BRINKMAN: I sure would like to.
21 The Zimmer Station is prepared to go possibly 22 further than the generic program in accepting these criteria, 23 and I'd like that point' to be understood by the ACRS, that 24 we are not relying solely on the generic acceptance of 25 Mark II c: eria. We are prepared to go further.
[}
1 cAce- 9ederal cReporteu, .One.
444 NORTM CAPITOL STREET WAsMINGTON. D C. 2000t (102) SA7 3700
133 1 CHAIRMAN BENDER: You're saying that you mny 2 decide to go your own way? Is that a way of interpreting it?
(} 3 MR. BRINKMAN: We may decide to be more agreeable 4 than the generic program.
O 5 (Laughter.)
6 MR. BRINKMAN: And we will probably do that under l 7 the pressure of schedule. We recognize that the Staff is 8 hard-pressed to come to a decision, and we want to make that 9 decision easier by being more cooperative.
10 Our plant in many cases has the capability to 11 take loads which we may quarrel with from a technical point 12 of view, but we're simply saying let's don't quarrel with ,
13 that and delay licensing, let's be agreeable.
() 14 CHAIRMAN BENDER: We understand the pressures of 15 time.
16 DR. ZUDANS: Sometime today someone wot .d be 17 able to address the question that actually Ivan placed, and 18 I want to supplement that question:
19 Those 36-foot long downcomers than hang in the 20 water by about 10 feet, in accordance with the design 21 criteria they're subjected to lateral loads. There's a 22 static lateral load of 8.8 kips and dynamic loads with 23 various frequencies.
24 The question is: Has anybody analyzed the 25 response of this long, slender downcomer and shown that it
[}
cAce 9edeza{ cReportcu, Dnc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. O.C. 20001 (301) 347 3700
- .u-
134 1 will stay in place as needad? I 2 MR. BRINKMAN: Yes, sir, it has been analyzed.
3 That:particular downcomer arrangement was designed by
((}
4 Sargent & Lundy. They did an analysis of both the static 5 and the dynamic loads. Those loads were all within.the e capability of the downcomer, when analyzed in accordance 7 with the criteria of the Staff.
8 Both the dynamic and the static loadings were 9 applied in a variety of ways in an effort to maximize 10 loadings on not only the columns but the floor.
11 DR. ZUDANS: Is there a separate report where 12 this is discussed?
13 MR. BRINKMAN: That is documented'in the Zimmer
() 14 Station closure report, whidh discusses th'e. analysis that 15 was done.
16 DR. ZUDANS: The specific point I want to make 17 is that a partially submerged structure like this reduces 18 sts natural frequencies. In other words, the more you 19 submerge, the slower it will vibrate, and you may come 20 into a synchronism where there's some excitement pulsation 21 due to chugging or some other effect.
22 This is the particular thing that I'd like to 23 see, or have somebody tell me about.
[}
24 MR. BRINKMAN: Do you want to have the discussion
'25 now, or --
)
cAce-]cdcta{ cAepotieu, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (302) 847 3700
135 1 DR. ZUDANS: No, it's all right. At som --
2 CHAIREAN BENDER: Let's hold it for the time v
) 3 being.
4 MR. BRINKMAN: It has been considered and it has O
5 been documented in our closure report, and we do have the 6 people with us today who can discuss it with you.
7 DR. PLESSET: I think you'll be at the San 8 Francisco meeting --
g DR. ZUDANS: Oh, that will be there?
10 DR. PLESSET: I think we'll have a chance and 11 they'll have a chance to tell us more specifically.
12 DR. ZUDANS: Okay.
13 CHAIRMAN BENDER: It is a generic problem. Your r8
(_) ja solution may be unique, but it's a generic problem.
15 MR. BRI?7 MAN: Yes, sir, it is a generic problem.
16 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Can we go on?
17 MR. FLYNN: The next item, physi al separation 18 and electrical independence, the only reason we believe 19 this is open is for an NRC field audit to take place, and 20 we've described in pretty much detail in the FSAR our 21 commitment in this area.
22 The next item, safety-related disp.'.a) instru-(~'N 23 mentation, I'd like to have Mr. Joe Seibert, electrical
\_]
24 engineer with CG&E, address this point.
CHAIRMAN BENDER: Before we go on, Mr. Scholl
- ') 25 cAce 9edeta[ cAepoticu, .Onc.
444 N O 8t TH CAPITOL STREET W A SHINGTON. D.C. Roool (zoa) 347 370o
136 l
' wanted to comment on the-previous matter.
2 We, of course, have had a MR. SCHOLL: Yes.
O '
1one discuseson with cincinneet ces e riectric. 2her ere
-presently qualifying some isolation amplifiers for the L 5
star trek monitoring system, which is a startup monitoring, 6 which they are also going to use later on as part of their 7
in-plant testing system.
8 They're considering using it for response time 8 testing -- parts of the system, not the whole star trek 10 system.
11 We also have another problem, an issue which has 12 been raised in the review of plants like Zimmer and LaSalle 13 with regard to isolation devices between the General Electric O ' 14 supplied nuclear instrumentation system and non safety 15 indication, and we're having some experience -- or exper-16 iencing some difficulties there also.
17 With regard to the third area, where we were 18 having a problem, the auxiliary trip units. We have 19 decided in Staff that these trip units are acceptable --
20 the bundling and the wiring of the non safety and safety 21 wiring across the hinge assembly is acceptable. It's 22 acceptable for the same reasons as we accepted the situation
^=d overeetae O
i= the we tiaehouse desiva for os h1o ceavoa-24 experience with this equipment has demonstrated you don't O have en induced notee prob 1em, you have re1etive1r 1ow-emerer cOce 9edera{ cRepozicu, Onc.
Add NORTH CAPITOL. STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 30001 l (soa) 347.370o l
137 1 circuits involved, and you have suitable electrical insule-2 tion.
( '; 3 So, in closing, to summarize, we're talking about 4 two different problems. Both involve isolation amplifiers.
'U 5 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Okay. Go ahead.
6 MR. SEIBERT: I'm Joe Seibert from CG&E.
7 Safety-related display instrumentation. We have 8 provided the Staff with a modified design for the power 9 sources for the rod display system. Other than that, I 10 believe that we owe the Staff a little information, but 11 we're really waiting on the Staff to complete their review.
12 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Okay.
13 MR. FLYNN: The safety-related display instru-() 14 mentation -- rather, the use of non safety grade equipment, 15 I'd like to have Mr. Dick Johnson of GE make a statement.
16 MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 17 Committee, you may recall previously on other dockets there 18 were some questions raised regarding the use of non safety ;
1 19 grade equipment in a turbine building that perhaps wasn't l 20 qualified seismically, and its use in transient mitigation. I 1
n 21 The use of this equipment we have historically 22 taken credit for during these abnormal operating transients m 23 because there is nothing to tell us that the equipment will J
24 not operate. The equipment has some degree of reliability,
x 25 and we believe it's appropriate to take credit for it.
d cAce 9edeta{ cAeposteu, $nc.
Add NORTH C APITOL STR EET W A S HI N G TO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
138 l
1 The subjcct has just .recently -bann rais d on the 2 Zimmer docket within the last couple of months. We had
()
x/
3 not had any outstanding questions until the meeting held ,
4 in Aucust, and then we learned that the Staff had this
,m
\ )
~
5 concern about the use of this equipment.
6 So we have been trying to get with the Staff to 7 work this problem out and to give them some assurance that a the equipment is reliable and will be available during these 9 abnormal operating transients.
10 There will be a meeting next week between the 11 Staff and General Electric to try to come to some resolution 12 of this matter.
13 CHAIRMAN BENDER: When this matter has been
,o
) 34 discussed -- there were two areas of concern:
15 One was the matter of whether the seismic 16 qualification was needed.
17 The other was, setting aside that, was there 18 some kind of way of proving thst there was adequate quality 39 in the equipment if it wasn't specified as safety grade.
20 I Presume you're going to make the latter point?
21 MR. JOHNSON: We're actually going to make the 22 latter point, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN BENDER:
~
,' ')
23 Okay, thank you.
</
24 MR. JOHNSON: One other item:
.l LJ 25 Mr. Scholl did mention the isolaters between cAce- 9edera{ cReportcu, One 444 NORTH C APITOL STR EET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
139 1 tho'nucicar instrumentation and soma class non-lE instru-2 mentation.
() 3 We are.in the process of qualifying these 4 isolaters and we owe the Staff this qualification data.
O 5 MR. FLYNN: The next item, fire protection, we 6 agree with the Staff's statement. So unless any menber 7 of the Subcommittee wanted to question the Applicant 8 further --
9 CHAIRMAN BENDER: No.
10 MR. FLYNN: Plant and support staffing, we'd 11 like to have Mr. Borgman address the issue of support 12 staffing.
13 MR. BORGMAN: I would like to comment and perhaps
} 14 elaborate on the Staff's position.
15 A few months ago the Staff contacted us, both
,6 at the construction site and down at our corporate offices,-
17 about some questions on staffing, both from the corporate 18 support standpoint and from a staff standpoint at the 19 plant.
]
20 We have been doing something about it.on the 1
21 corporate level. We nade some reorganization, we've
]
22 defined Mr. Brinkman as being' responsible for the design i
() 23 support at Zimmer after the plant is in operation. His !
24 staff will be augmented, certainly in the instrumentation 25 and control area.
.(])
cAce 9ea'eraf cReporteu, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITCL STREET j
- WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 ;
(702) 3d7-3700 i
140 1 Onn of the complaints from a corporate standpoint '
2 was a lack of system engineers. We're bringing three system engineers into the downtown staff, two of which have f]) 3 4 already been hired. And from the plant level, the mainten-O 5 ance engineer position anc the training supervisor position 6 are both vacant at the present time. Both those gentlemen 7 resigned a few months ago to accept better positions e elsewhere, and we have been in the process of trying to 9 get replacements ever since.
10 We've been pursuing this very diligently through 11 advertising in national magazines, we had people at the 12 ANS booth up there in Washington, and we made a commitment 13 to have these people hired within six months of the fuel 14 loading date, and we're actively pursuing that and we wili 15 get the people.
16 The reactor engineer I think was questioned, and 17 in the revision to the SER there was a commitment made that 18 we will have a man fully qualified to ANSI-18.1 to work with 19 him for at least six months. The man we have is a well-20 qualified man except for the fact he does not have. operating 21 experience, and I think that's what Staff is alluding to.
22 But he will be backed up for at least six months.
() 23 So I just wanted to let the Committee know that from a 24 corporate standpoint we intend to fully staff both the plant 25 and the downtown office with qualified people in sufficient
(~}
c0ce 9ederal cReporteu, Dac.
444 NORTH CAPITO! STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
141 1
quantity and quality to fully implem nt the oparation of 2
the Zimmer Station.
3 Thank you.
)
4 CHAIR'UW BENDER: I'm not very close to your
(,,\
/ 5 staffing problems, but your commentary leads me to think 6 somewhat about the matter of how much backup exists within 7 the parent organization. It's clear that at any time one 8 of these plants could find one important individual ill or 9 some such thing, and the plant might be without experienced to personnel just because of limited backup.
11 I would hope that's also being looked into.
12 MR. BORGMAN: It is, both from the engineering 13 standpoint and from the operating standpoint. We feel we
~)n 14 have enough younger people coming -- I think the problem 15 is when you start a plant everyone wants experience, and 16 it's hard to get a staff with complete experience. So 17 you have to start someplace.
18 We have a mix of experienced and inexperienced 19 people. But we feel once we get going, some of the 20 inexperienced people will be able to fill the slots and will 21 be experienced as the plant gocs into operation.
22 And from the corporate standpoint., I think we
S 23 he Septh behind every position in the engineering depart-V 24 ment.
25 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Thank you.
cAce- 9edesa{ c3 ptleu, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPtTOL STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
142 1 MR. FLYNN: The last two items, industrial !
l 2 security and preoperational test startup program, we
.i 3 agree essentially with the Staff's status report of this 4 item.
O 5 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Any other items, Mr. Flynn?
6 MR. FLYNN: That's it, sir.
7 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Dr. Zudans?
8 DR. ZUDANS: Okay. I have three questions,.not 9 related to each other, directed to Applicant.
10 One, I read in the SER that after you cast the 11 foundation mat you made settlement measurements, and there 12 was one number quoted as settling by some .6 inches.
13 The question is: Have you measured relative O 14 setetemeae et atfrereme votaes ia enee mee, eaa are you 15 continuing to measure these settlements?
16 MR. CRAIL: My name is Howard Crail, and we're 17 continuously measuring the settlement at various points 18 throughout the plant, throughout the reactor building, the 39 aux building and the turbine building as well.
20 DR. ZUDANS: And is this information avail *able 21 as to how much the relative settlement is at different points 22 in the mat?
23 MR. CRAIL: Yes, we have this documented. I 24 don't know whether we've submitted it to the NRC or not.
DR. ZUDANS:
b v/ -
25 It would be of interest.
cA:: 9edeeal cReporters. Dnc.
444 NORTH CAPITO4. STftEET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 30001 (801) $47-3700
143 1 MR., PELTIER: I baliava it states in the SER 2 that we do require a report of the settlement progress
) 3 periodically.
4 DR. ZUDANS: The only thing is that the SER
('~' )
5 reports one point, it does not report how different points 6 settle on the mat. And I think that's the only thing that's 7 of real importance.
8 But it's okay.
9 Now, the next question:
10 When walking through the plant yesterday, we 13 looked at the pipe whip restraints. The question is:
12 Have these restraints been qualified as to their 13 energy absorbing capability, or if they are just a brand new
,- 3
(,) 14 design that's now being implemented by you?
15 MR. FLYNN: I'd like to turn that question over 16 to Steve Rurka.
17 MR. RURKA: Well, your question is: Is it 18 qualified by tests, is that it?
19 DR. ZUDANS: Well, either test or analysis, or 20 anything?
21 MR. RURKA: Well, they've been qualified by 22 analysis, yes.
I^T 23 DR. ZUDANS: I see. And how are they oriented?
\_/
24 What makes you believe that the orientation is exactly 25 where a pipe would want to go? Or you do not consider it...
)
c;0cc-]cdcta[ cAeporters, $nc.
d44 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHiraGTON. O.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
144 l
' Well, those locations have been MR. RURKA:
2 determined and the restraint has been put in an offset (T';/ 3 position, so that when the pipe is heated up, why, it will l
I 4
,r~'s center itself into the restraint.
'u. / 5 Then, of course, when they do the -- I believe 6
it's a hot balance, there will be a check on the pipe and 7
shims will be provided where necessary.
8 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Let me try to turn the question 9
around a little bit:
10 If I understand what you're telling us, you're 11 saying that the design is such that the pipe eventually 12 is to be centrally located in the restraint with the 13 anticipation that the restraint will take a load in any
,m,
'\-) 14 direction?
15 MR. RURKA: Well, the gap in the restraint will 16 be controlled so that it doesn't exceed a certain distance.
17 That limits the amount of whip CHAIFG9S BENDER:
18 it gets before it hits the pipe.
19 MR. RURKA: Yes.
20 CHAIRMAN BENDER: And that, plus the --
21 MR. RURKA: That is part of the design criteria, 22 that gap be naintained to a required --
(L./*) 23 CHAIRMAN BENDER: But it requires a loading model, 24 again, a subject which we've heard here before. And there 25 is a question about how you verify that the analytical I'])
c0ce- 9edeta( cReporters, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITCL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 200o1 (301) 347-370o
145 1- process that you're using to establish the acceptability of 2 the design can be accepted with what I would call design
(} 3 comfort.
4 At the moment how sure are you that you're right?
O 5 That's all.
6 MR. RURKA: Well, the material was very well 7 controlled and tested. They've made tests on the material 8 to make sure that it has the right yield, and a cross-section 9 was verified.
10 CHAIRMAN BENDER: But it's not the properties of 11 the material that we have in mind. It's the forces that 12 are being applied to it.
13 DR. ZUDANS: Correct. Let me tell you what the
() 14 concern is -- if any. There may not be a concern. Don't 15 misinterpret me.
16 If the analysis was done under certain assumptions 17 of certain characteristics for the support, non-linear 18 characteristics, to absorb the energy, you get one set of 19 forces on the structures that you support these things l
20 against. If the actual system is much stiffer than the 21 assumption that was made in your calculation, then you get 1
22 that much bigger forces. And the rest of your structure 1
I 23 may not be able to take it.
24 So normally one would have to have some tests 25 to show what the characteristics of this type of a restraint
)
c:Oce 9edeta( c.Reporteu, Snc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 2000t (102) 347 3700
146 1 is, not just an analysis. In all other cases I have seen 2 test results.
(3
%)
3 And you do not_ operate in the linear range.
4 Unless you design your restraints in such a way O 5 that you said, once the pipe hits the restraint it stops.
6 Then you have a very conservative system, and then, of 7 course, I would have no concern at all.
8 MR. RURKA: Now, of course, these restraints 9 have been designed for energy absorption.
10 DR. ZUDANS: Well, that is what we want to see.
11 MR. RURKA: We have those calculations.
12 DR. ZUDANS: Not calculations.
13 MR. RURKA: Oh, you want the test results? I 14 believe there have been some tests made of these.
15 MR. BOSNAK: GE has conducted a series of tests, 16 and we've looked at the tests. These restraints are part 17 of that test program. This is a generic program.
18 DR. ZUDANS: This is of a GE design?
19 MR. BOSNAK: This is a GE design that we're l
20 talking about. l 1
21 _DR. ZUDANS: Of course, these support restraints--
22 or restraints would react quite differently in different i
23 directions.
24 MR. BOSNAK: We have a 50-percent ultimate 25 uniform strain criteria that we --
&ce 9edeta[ cAepiteu, Sac 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (3o2) 347.a700 -
147 1 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, let's not try to resolve 2 that problem here.
') 3 Would the Staff make a point of trying to get 4 the technological basis for this design presented to us --
m
)
5 in written form, preferably, because it would give us a 6 chance to see what it is?
7 MR. PELTIER: We'll do that.
8 DR. ZUDANS: My last question is very simple:
9 What is the foundation elevation of the cooling 10 tower?
11 CHAIRMAN BCUDER: Do you understand the question? l l
l 12 What's the foundation elevation of the cooling tower?
13 MR. RURKA: The foundation elevation of the 7s
,) 14 cooling tower is at 515, and it's sitting on pilings.
15 DR. ZUDANS: Okay. Now, has the cooling tower 16 been analyzed for loads induced by flood? Because it's 17 obviously below the maximum recorded flood level, and quite is a bit below the switchyard.
19 MR. 'KA:
. Well, the flood of record was 517.
20 Now, that was unregulated. Due to regulation we don't 21 expect the floods of record to be over 508, and we really 22 haven't analyzed it but --
/T
~~
23 DR. ZUDANS: Would this then mean that it's not
,1 24 really a safety-related issue?
25 MR. RURKA: Well, we don't really . . .
})
cAcc. ]cdera[ cAeporten, .Onc.
444 N ORTH CAPITOL, STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
148 .
1 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Wall, okay. Any other points, j i '
2 Mr. Flynn?
3 MR. FLYNN: No, sir.
4- CHAIRMAN BENDER: I suggest we break for lunch :
O 5 now and plan to come back at 1:25. I expect we can't feed 6 ourselves in less than an hour. So we'll pick up at that 7 time With the status of'the Mark II containment.
8 For the purpose of planning, some of the 9 Subcommittee have to leave at 3:00 o' clock, but I and some 10 of the consultants will_be able to stay here after 3:00.
is so we'll try to organize the afternoon meeting to satisfy 12 those who have to leave early.
13 (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the meeting was
~
O ,
14 recessed, to reconvene at 1:25 g.m., this.same day.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O
24 O
c:Oce 9ederaf cAeportcu, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (302) 347 3700
149 1 A[TEggggg EgEglqE 2 (1:30 p.m.)
(~'; 3 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Gentlemen, can we reconvene?
'J 4 Mr. Fl*fnn, are there any loose ends you want to o
5 clean up?
6 MR. FLYNN: Yes, sir.
7 With the Chairman's permission, we would like to e address four items that came up this morning.
9 CHAIRMAN BENDER: All right.
10 MR. FLYNN: The first one we'd like to address is 11 the relative locations of the control rod drive tubing and 12 the recirculation piping, and Herb Brinkman will address 13 that.
e's
() 14 MR. BRINKMAN: This morning .a question was raised:
15 What if one of the recirculation pipes should 16 rupture and damage the control rod drive tubing, by either 17 direct impingement of the pipe upon the tubing, or by steam 18 discharge against the tubing.
39 We discussed this morning the fact that the pipe 20 is restrained by pipe whip restraints, prevented from slinging 21 about. We did not really discuss the problem of jet 22 impingment out of the pipe onto the tubing.
j em 23 I had one of the fellows from the office at (v) 24 lunch review a report we had in house from General Electric,
n 25 which was actually done on the ATWS docket. But at any rate, l
)
cAce- 9edeza{ cAepotieu, .Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (102) 347 3700
. 150 1 thn cvaluation that's prns nted in this report indicates 2 reactor shutdown is accomplished when two conditions are
) 3 met with regard to control rod drive failures.
e The first condition is that at least 50 percent
)
5 of the control rods must be inserted.
6 The second condition is you can't have more than 7 five control rod drives in a cluster fail to go in.
8 So, if you recall, when you looked at the power 9 plant -- maybe I should draw it on a flimsy here . . .
10 (Pause . )
11 (Slide.)
I 12 If we look at a plan view of the react,or building, 13 we see in the center a circle representing the reactor.
p LJ- 14 Then outside of it, the drywell. And the concern is when 15 the reactor piping comes down, moves horizontally through 16 the building, and all the tubing -- these lines are supposed 17 to represent the tubing -- the control rod drive tubing, 18 what if this recirc line would break, and break off a whole 19 bunch of these tubes?
20 I think the answer is that there are actually 21 two banks of control rod drive modules out in the reactor 22 building, 180 degrees apart. So the tubing from -- let's
() 23 call this bank "A" and this bank "B" -- they have one half 24 of the tubing coming from "A" and one half coming from "B".
'} 25 This tubing is arranged in a lattice pattern such that cAce 9edeta( cAeportcu, Snc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 2C@01 (202) 347 3700
151 1 there's an even distribution of tha "A" and "B" tubes.
2 So if we fail all of these, we still get 50 percent of them
() 3 to go into the "B" side, and we also avoid a cluster-of-five
, s.
4 problem because of the cross hatch.
5 Now, in addition to that, there is a backup 6 system that was mentioned this morning, that you do have the 7 boron injection systems which can shut the plant down, even a without the control rod drive.
9 That's the end of my explanation.
10 CHAIRMAN BENDER: That's a good explanation.
11 We thought that was the answer you'd give, but it's always 12 good to have the Applicant know what his backups are.
13 (Laaghter.)
_/ 14 MR. BRINKHAN: I think I'll sit down.
15 MR. FLYNN: Mr. Chairman, we'd like now to 13 address the concrete temperature during the accident, and 17 Mr. Krishna Swamy will address this one.
18 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: I'm sorry? What's the item 19 I'm supposed to be talking about?
20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. FLYNN: Concrete temperature in the event of 22 an accident.
1
(~) 23 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: Yes. l
'J 24 Concrete temperature in the event of an accident l l
() 25 was raised this morning. There's a figure in the SAR, the l cAce 9edeta( cAepotteu, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
~'
152 1 PSAR -- ;
2 CHAIRMAN BENDER: How about' coming up-to the f
.() 3 front? We can't hear you. Take'the microphone at the 4 podium. 5
() ~
5 MR. KRISHA1SWAMY: Figure 3.8-30 is.a typical ,
6- temperature distribution to the containment drywell wall.
7 The maximum temperature that you see --
8 CHAIRMAN BENDER: What are you reading from?
I 9 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: This is a figure from the- ;
10 FSAR,_Section 3.8, Figure number 3.8-30, 11 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Thank you.
12_ MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: The maximum temperature 13 one hour after the accident is about 140 degrees, and then
(} 14 the maximum after 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> is about 175 degree's. And'then 15 at 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />, it comes back down to 160 degrees.
16 The integrity of the concrete is preserved, P 17 because the containment core pernits a temperature of about 18 350 degrees, permits a value of about 350 degrees, for an 19 accident. And a local area during an accident can go to c 20 about 600 degrees C., preserving the integrity of the 21 concrete, q l
During operating conditions,it permits 150 degrees j 22 t
() 23 for the concrete. The operating temperature in the drywell 24 of the concrete is about 130 degrees.
DR. ZUDANS: The temperatures you read out, are j
(]) 25 c0cc- 9edeta{ cRepotieu, Snc. ;
- 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. O.C. 20000 (aca) 347.s700
153 1 they tha average to the wall, or the interface bntween the 2 liner and the concrete?
3 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: The second one, the interface
( ])
4 between the liner and the concrete wall.
5 DR. ZUDANS: And the liner temperature at the 6 same time --
7 MR. KRISENA SWAMY: The liner temperature at the 8 same time, the maximum reaches about 190 degrees.
9 DR. ZUDANS: And the drywell temperature is 340?
10 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: 340 degrees for a short gi du?ation. I really have to say that it's a transient curve.
- lasts for a short duration -- I have only the picture in 13 my mind, but I think the transient curve is given in Section
! _) 14 6.2 of the FSAR. It lasts for a few seconds, and then the 15 rest of it . . .
16 DR. CATTON: How do you couple the environment --
17 the containment environment, to the liner, thermally?
18 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: The inside atmosphere -- you 39 want to know how they interface?
20 DR. CATTON: I want to know what the heat transfer 21 coefficient is.
22 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: I don't know the exact value 23 for the coefficient, but I can give tne layers that are
/}
24 involved in the analysis, because the atmosphere temperature
( 25 is maintained as per the transient curve, for the heat input.
cAce 9edera( cAeportcu, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
154 1
And then there is a film between the atmosphere 2
and the liner.
/' 3 i DR. CATTON: I_ understand that. I'm asking:
4 What is the film coefficient?
br' MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: I don't have that number right 6
here._ I think I can supply the number.
DR. CATTON: I would appreciate that.
8 MR. FLYNN: Okay, if there are no further questions 9
on that topic, would you address the lateral load on 10 downcomers? ,
' MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: Yes.
12 The question of the effect of submergence on the 13 frequency of the downcomer was raised.
O ,,
As I mentioned,_the downcomer was designed for 15 the 8.8 kip load, static load, so the question of frequency 16 doesn't come into the picture. .
17 Also, for the dynamic load, where the loading is 18 given as lasting within 3 to 6 milliseconds, we did consider the radiational frequency of the downcomer because of the 20 submergence.
21 The frequency of the downcomer is about 4-plus, 22 If we add the less than 5 hertz, when it is empty. ,
() 23 additional mass because of the water, then the frequency 24 will be only lower, and that takes it away from the short
() 25 duration load that we have for the lateral load, which gives cAce- 9edera{ c.Reposteu, .One.
444 NORTM CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
155 1 lower responso.
2 In the closure report, which is Appendix I to I) 3 the FSAR,Section I.2.3.5, we give the comparative results
_ 4 of an analysis of the downcomer and the maximum moment and V shear in the downcomer point where it is attached to the 5
6 drywell floor for the static coolant load, and also for the 7 dynamic load.
8 The static load produces a maximum momt.it of 9 300 foot kip, and the dynamic load produces about 120, 10 So the dynamic load produces nmaller effects 11 compared to the static, which is more aservative.
12 DR. CATTON: Do you har temperature / time and 33 mass flux / time history?
7_
34 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: For --
15 DR. CATTON: For the pool, the steam in the pool, 16 pool temperature? And at what time does the pool reach 17 what temperature?
18 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: That's not my expertise.
19 Maybe I should --
20 DR. CATTON: That's what's going to determine 21 your load.
22 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: Mr. Crawford will address
() 23 that question.
24 MR. CRAWFORD: I'm Ray Crawford, from --
^T CHAIRMAN BENDER: Mr. Crawford, would you come 25 (G
cAce 9edeta[ cAcyotters, !lnc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 y ,
156 -
1 up and us: one of the microphones?
2 MR. CRAWFORD: Ray Crawford, from Sargent & Lundy. !
) 3 I'm not sure I heard your question, entirely.
,~ 4 DR. CATTON: I'll repeat it:
' a) 5 I would like to see the pool temperature as a 6 function of time, and the downcomer mass flux as a function 7 of time; and then to have this related to the chugging a phenomenon, so that I can be assured that when you develop 9 your dynamic load from the downcomers, that it's being done 10 properly. And I have not seen this put together.
11 I was wondering if maybe you could refer me to 12 where it is done, or who has done it, and where de the 13 numbers come from?
n '
- d #
14 MR. CRAhTORD: For the dynamic load?
15 DR. CATTON: The chugging loads, right. Chugging 16 loads are a function of pool temperature and mass flux, as 17 we all know, and I've not been able to find this kind of 18 information; namely, the pool temperature as a function of 19 time and the mass flux as a function of tir.e. mass steam 20 flux into the pool.
21 MR. CRAWFORD: Let me comment on how we do the i
22 ; analysis.
)
v 23 The design controlling load is 8.8 kips applied 24 to the tip of the downcomer, which is considered as a
[ ) 25 static equivalent load. This value was based on tests that k/
cAce. 9elcta{ cAepoitcu, Sac 444 NOMTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) # $7-3700
157 l
1 were performed primarily overseas.
t 2 We did a full-scale test with a single vent in
( ') 3 the 4T test facility, simulating the break condition for both 4 the steam break and liquid break, and this was an attempt to
() 5 simulate all of the characteristics of the steam mass flux 6 and the pool temperature that you menti'ned.
7 DR. CATTON: But, as we know, in the 4T test the 8 temperature never exceeded 60 degrees C., right? That's 9 why I'm asking you about the temperature.
10 MR. CRAhTORD : The final temperature?
11 (Dr. Plesset and Dr. Catton conferring.)
12 MR. BRINKMAN: If I may, I think the problem is 13 related, really, to the fact that the ultimate pool temper-(_/ 14 ature gets up to 160 degrees water temperature, as reported 15 in the FSAR.
DR. PLESSET: Under what conditions, though?
16 17 MR. BRINKMAN: This is under long-term LOCA 18 cooling, whereby the energy being dumped into the pool is 19 in the form of hot water.
20 DR. PLESSET: Do you still have chugging at that 21 time?
MR. BRINKMAN: No, I think that's the point. But 22 23 I think perhaps Dr. Catton's question is directed to at what l f^]
w.
24 time do you stop having chugging, and at that time what is 25 the water temperature?
l'~~)
o cAce 9edeta( cReportets, Soc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 37tM
158 1 DR. CATTON: Right. .That's exactly my question.
2 MR.:BRINKMAN: I volunteered that to try'to be j} 3 helpful in supplying you a good answer.
4 DR. CATTON: Fine. Fine.
O' .5 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Can you answer that question?
6' MR..CRAWFORD: The final temperature?
7 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, let me try it:
8 I think it's stated right, but repetition, now 9 that we agree on the question,.will make the issue more 10 clear, maybe.
11 What we recognize is that the pool temperature 12 rises, but we are concerned about the pool temperature at 13 the time when steam is passing through it. After the
() 14 reactor stops steaming, it doesn't'make any difference.
15 What we'd like to know is what the temperature is 16 while the reactor is steaming, because that's where the 17 chugging phenomenon comes from.
18 Do you have a correlation between those two things?
19 DR. PLESSET: Should I restate it?
20 CHAIRMAN BENDER: If you think you can do it 21 better than I did, go ahead.
22 (Laughter.)
DR. PLESSET: What the question is directed to,
{} 23 I thlak, is when this chugging essentially is nearing 24 25 completion, what is the pool temperature? Has it gone up cAce 9edezal cRepsteu, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITCL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 )
(sans snavn ,
I
159 1 very far bayond 60 degrens, 60 or 70 degrees C.?
2 MR. CRAWFORD: I can't answer your question as to
,', 3 what that final temperature is.
4 I would like to point out that the controlling 1
5 flow that was used is the 8.0, which is based on zero percent 6 air at the maximum pool temperature, although I don't 7 remember what that pool temperature is.
8 The 4T test was performed as nearly as we could 9 to simulate both the mass flux and the pool temperature.
10 There's no external cooling in the pool. The steam is 11 dumped right into the pool.
12 I can provide the mass flux data or temperature 13 transient data, if that's of interest. But I don't have
/'N
- b 14 that inbanation with me.
15 DR. PLESSET: Does the Staff perceive what the 16 question is?
17 DR. BUTLER: Yes, sir. I understand the question, 18 but I don't have at my fingertips the pool temperature at 19 the end of chugging.
20 But recognize that what we would normally do is 21 Postulate that the LOCA event occurs at the maximum pool 22 starting temperature.
/'~T 23 DR. PLESSET: Right, that's the beginning.
u-)
24 DR. BUTLER: There is a tech spec limit as to 25 when you must shut down the plant if the suppression pool
( })
cAce 9edeta[ cRepiteis, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S HI N G TO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
160
'1 temperature exceeds a certain temperature.
2 DR. PLESSET: There's no question about that. '
DR. BUTLER: So you postulate the LOCA there, and 4
then dump all the energy in the primary system into the 5
pool, and you arrive at a maximum temperature.
6 I suspect'that the 4T test had to have been, and probably should have been, at that pool temperature 8
corresponding to the maximum pool temperature following a LOCA event.
10 DR. PLESSET: Well, we'll leave it at that, then.
Il DR.-BUTLER: And we'll look into it for the 12 November 28 Subcommittee meeting. '
13 DR. PLESSET: I think we all agree as to what V 14 the question was. .
15 DR. BUTLER: Yes.
16 DR. PLESSET: Thank you.
17 MR. FLYNN: If there are no further questions on
'8 that topic, we would like to now address the drywell head
'8 load.
20 Let me get my papers on that.
MR. KRISHNA SWAMY:
21 (Pause.)
22 (Slide.)
O 23 Ie s a 11te1e sxeechr, but here's ea iaee or the 24 pressure that is considered when one of those four lines h 25 break at any one time. The maximum pressure is about 161 psi c0cc. 9edeta{ cReporten, One.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (aoa) s47.s70o
161 1 and varios up to thS top. It acts over a local area hera.
2 The width of that radius as it goes along the meridian at 3 any one time, only one of these breaks are considered, and
( })
4 these pressures are acting on the drywell head, in addition
( )
5 to the 45 psi design accident pressure load.
6 And after the condensation it is assumed that 7 in the external corridor negative pressure of about 8 psi 8 for the design of the drywell head.
9 And these are the jet impingement loads on the 10 drywell head.
11 DR. ZUDANS: What was the controlling factor in 12 the design, the external pressure or the internal?
13 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: It's a matter of balancing t./ 14 them all, or both of them. The internal pressure causing 15 tension and the external pressure trying to make it unstable 16 because of buckling.
17 DR. ZUDANS: Which one was the controlling 18 factor in the design?
19 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: The combined -- stresses to 20 the venting was slightly higher than the external pressure.
21 DR. ZUDANS: Well, how did you compute your 22 buckling load?
l MR. KRISHNA SWIMY: How did we compute the
('}
~.-
23 24 buckling load? We calculated the buckling load for this 25 section with the fixes as given on the basis of empirical
'} ')
c0ce- 9edeta( cAeportcu, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 2000t (101) 3474 700
162 I
3 formulae which are at least having a safety margin of three l
2 more analytical calculations would provide for a shell of O 3 this shape, in the sense there are-no definite analytical 4 expressions which would predict the buckling strength of O 5 this, considoring the . geometric eccentricities for this -- )
i 6
imperfections. 1 i
7 DR. ZUDANS: Well, you hope to have a factor of 8 three, at least, so you did compute the linear bifurcation 9 point on this one here?
10 MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: That's right.
11 DR. ZUDANS: And what was the factor against 12 which you designed it for?
p MR. KRISHNA SWAMY: The factor against that I 14 think was 4.8 or so.
15 DR. ZUDANS: Thank you.
16 MR. FLYNN: If there are no further questions on 17 that, Mr. Chairman, this concludes the responses that we 3g put together at lunch.
CHAIRMAN BENDER: I think we took lunch;at the 39 20 right time. .
21 (Laughter.) ,
22 Can we then go to the status of the Mark II 23 containment issues? We had planned on a presentation by 24 both the Applicant and the Staff. I'm not sure which one O s ' 'i""*> ""* "*' 2 "" S cAce. 9edera{ cReporteu, .Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTO N. D.C. 30001
. . . , , . _ _ _ . _ - . _ _._._m. .___m___
163 1 MR. FLYNN: We would graciously step asida and 2 allow the Staff to go ahead.
( -))
3 (Laughter.)
, 4 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Okay, Alphonse.
)
5 Walter, we'd like to be sure you tell us why you 6 want to cut the flange off the downcomer.
7 (Laughter.)
8 DR. BUTLER: Maybe, so I don't forget that, why 9 don't I try to indicate my understanding of that issue.
to CHAIRMAN BENDER: I hope it's something more then 11 just, "That's the way we test it."
12 (Laughter.)
13 But that may be the answer.
7 k3l 14 DR. BUTLER: I think there may be a little bit 15 more to it than that, but, again, I'm not certain. I recall 16 discussions on this point, and it was my understanding that 17 the Staff is concerned when you change the configuration of 18 the bottom of the downconers, and this concern, I believe, 19 was tied to some experimental data which indicated a 20 sensitivity to the configuration; that is, the flange was 21 . changed with respect to the end point in some test that I i
22 l can't really pinpoint at this time. But I'll be happy to I
23 I discuss it in a couple of weeks when we go to San Francisco.
( })
24 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Okay.
() 25 DR. PLESSET: That's fair enough.
cAce 9edeta{ cAeportcu, h 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHIN GMN. D.C. 2MC1 (202) 347 3700
l 164 1 CHAIRMAN BENDER: - Don't forget it two weeks from 2 now, Dr. Plesset.
() 3 DR. ZUDANS: Mr. Chairman, we observed that these l
4 downcomers are relatively closely spaced where they come 5 together in bunches.
6 Now, are there any tests that you know that 7 replicate any such close spacing of a fairly large number 8 of downcomers?
9 DR. BUTLER: What I'd like to do on that question 10 is defer to the other Subcommittee meeting, because I'm 11 not that on top of the tests that are available on this 12 subject.
13 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Fair enough, Walt. Thank you.
14 Why don't you go ahead and try, as well as you 15 can, to identify the Mark II containment issues that are 16 relevant to Zimmer, because that's really what we're after.
17 What do we need to know about it in order to get Zimmer 18 through whatever licensing process it expects to go through?
19 DR. BUTLER: I think if I tried to summarize in 20 a nutshell where we stand, I wculd sort of simply' state the 21 following: .
22 The Staff feels that the state of the Zimmer application at this time with respect to the dynamic
(]J 23 24 loads is that we are prepared to go forward with the 25 licensing proceeding. However, this is contingent on
~ (])
cAce- 9edeta{ cAepotieu, Soc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. aMet (zoa) s47-370o W 8 =* t &F' e 9
- 165 1 satisfactory resolution of the manner with which the loado 2 are combined.
If in a couple of months the Staff concludes that
(]) 3 4 the SRSS approach is an acceptable approach, then the Zimmer
( 5 applicant's approach to analysis of these pool dynamic loads 6 would generally be acceptable.
7 The Staff undertook a major program of review, 8 generic in character, with respect to these pool dynamic 9 loads and reported its results in the NUREG document we 10 referred to this morning, NUREG-0487.
11 This is a report that addresses the lead plant 12 program. There was a need for the lead plant program 13 because the work involved in the long-term program could
( 14 not be completed in time for lead plants such as Zimmer, 15 LaSalle and Shoreham.. For the licensing activities to 16 proceed on the lead plants, the' Staff and the owners group 17 -contrived the lead plant program, wherein all sub-elements 18 of the pool dynamic loads are resolved to that point where 19 available data will allow the issues to be resolved.
20 Where information was not adequately abundant on 21 an issue, the Staff took a position that was bounding in 1
22 character, to assur,e that the actual loads will always be
() 23 less than the bounding loads.
24 These bounding loads are carefully prescribed in I
25 this NUREG report. j
(])
c0ce 9edeza( cAeportcu, Onc. \
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. Rt901 (101) 347 3700
166 1 As Mr. Brinkman indicated earlier, the Mark II 2 owners were requested to examine all of these bounding loads,
() 3 assuming that the SRSS approach of combining them would be 4 acceptable, and to determine whether the plant as constructed s
-'-] 5 could withstand the loads associated with the criteria so 6 prescribed.
7 That examination led to a conclusion where the 8 Mark II owners felt they needed to take exception in about 9 six or seven specific areas.
10 Zimmer being a more advanced plant with respect 11 to construction schedule, found that it could proceed with 12 fewer exceptions, to the point where -- what I would like 13 to do at this point is identify those that remain with
(,) 14 respect to Zimmer itself. And some of these that continue 15 to be outstanding appear imminently resolvable.
16 The first one that I would identify is the issue 17 of asymmetric pool swell loads, which is identified as item 18 1.B.5 of Table 4-1 of the Staff's NUREG report.
19 I think it would be helpful at this point to 20 give the numbering system.
l 21 There is a summary loads given in Table 4-1 of i 22 the Staff's report. These loads are associated with the
- 23 acceptance criteria in Appendix D of that NUREG report.
(G 24 Table 4-1 provides all the correlations between
(~') 25 Appendix D, the loads in question, and the section number v
cAcc. 9edezal cReporters, Dnc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET WASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
157 1 and page number of the load evaluation report .here it is 2 addressed.
Just as an example, with respect to the issue
(} 3 4 considered earlier on lateral loads, dynamic. lateral loads, 5 that is in Table 4-1 identified as item 1.C.l.A. And that 6 is addressed in Section 3.B.4.A. of the load evaluation 7 report.
8 In that section is discussed the static and 9 dynamic loadings of the downcomer and the associated 10 acceptance criteria.
11 DR. ZUDANS: Is that summary table similar to 12 the summary table that was reproduced in the document which 13 says, " Mark II Generic Acceptance Criteria for Lead Plants?"
() 34 DR. BUTLER: That may be Appendix D. I believe 15 that is Appendix D, which is an element -- I think it's 16 important that when you get the NUREG report the key element 17 is Table 4-1, and it gives a road map of where to find 18 subsidiary discussions.
19 Now, then, back to the listing of items that
- 20 at this time are unresolved or open issues on the Zimmer 21 application. .
As I indicated earlier, one was the asymmetric 22 pool swell loads. It is my understanding that Cincinnati
{) 23 Gas & Electric Company will perform analyses as prescribed 24 by the Appendix D acceptance criteria. It is conceivable
() 25 cAce- 9edeta{ cReporteu, Snc. l 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET l W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347471M
-, ~. . . _ _
168 1
that they could find those criteria acceptable.
2 However, the Steff is prepared to work with the
( ) 3 Applicant here, and contrive a reduced set of loads for a
4 asymmetry and yet still have these loads conservative.
\ )
5 But we believe that we can wait until the Applicant continues 6 his analysis to demonstrate whether or not he could accept 7 the degree of asymmetry we prescribed in Appendix D.
E The second area that requires some additional 9 work between the Staff and the Zimmer Applicant involves 10 the SRV bubble phasing and frequency issue. Even here, as 11 in the first item, we believe that some further work with 12 the Zimmer Applicant could lead to a resolution of this 13 issue.
p -
(>> 14 The third and last item, where there appears to 15 be need for some further discussion between the Staff and 16 the Zimmer Applicant, deals with the LOCA SRV submerged 17 drag load. Just this past week we met with the Mark II 18 owners to consider certain additional information they had 19 which indicated some reduction in the loads prescribed 20 by the Staff is in order.
21 The Staf f's preliminary assessment of that 22 presentation was very favorable, and I believe that the l ('~5 23 Staff will find this matter to be resolved in the near v
24 future as well.
fl 25 So, in summary, what I'd like to do is simply v
cAce. 9edeza( cReporten, !.In:.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S HI N GTO N, D.C. 20001 j (zoa) 347 370o
169 1 reiterate that, subject to resolution of the SRSS load 2 combination method for the SRV and OBE loads, we believe that
- 3 the issues associated with LOCA pool dynamics can be found 4 resolved in the near term.
a 5 That's all I have to say.
6 CHAIRMAN BENDER: That was a good summary, Walt.
7 One point that I would like to understand better:
8 The agreement on the way of summing the loads, 9 what are the actions being taken to resolve that? Who is 10 working on it, and what kind of effort is involved?
11 DR. BUTLER: This would be Jim Knight, and I 12 believe Bob Bosnak's group.
13 MR. BOSNAK: We have a group that involves Jim
(-) 14 Knight, a member from our branch, from the structural branch, 15 and people also from the Division of Operating Reactors.
16 It's essentially the same people that worked on 17 the original document, with the exception of the original 18 task leader.
19 , CHAIRMAN BENDER: And the square root of the sum 20 of the squares applies mainly to the seismic part of the 21 loading, or is there something associated with the loading 22 increment from the lead valves as well?
(~~'s 23 MR. BOSNAX: We're talking about all the various L ,1 24 dynamic loads that can be associated with the hydrodynamic
'~~
- 25 aspects of it, and then also the seismic aspect, particularly a
cAce 9edeta( cRepozten, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WAsMINGTON D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
170 1 when we're talking about a loval-B load limit.
2 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Okay. Well, I've asked enough
) 3 and we'll look for more.
4 I wouldn't be surprised if the Committee wouldn't
(#l 5 want to learn more about the status of that. What's the 6 timing on that?
7 MR. BOSNAK: There will be a report at the 8 San Francisco meeting.
9 DR. PLESSET: Oh, there will?
10 MR. BOSNAK: Of at least where we are at that 33 point.
12 DR. PLESSET: Okay. Fair enough.
13 CHAIRMAN BENDER: So you can decide.
em
() _
14 (Laughter.)
15 Mr. Flynn, how smart were you?
16 MR. FLYNN: Smart enough.
17 (Laughter.)
18 He would like to respond to Dr. Butler's presenta-39 tion. Herb Brinkman will address that, again.
BRINKMAN: I think as it turns out, it doesn't 20 21 really matter who goes first.
22 I had a detailed list of all the issues here to
/'N 23 show exactly where we were on each. Almost all of them, as V
24 Dr. Butler indicated, we're in agreement, and I don't think r"; 25 it's necessary to go through seven pages of --
c4ce- 9edeta( cReportcu, .One.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WA SHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (zoa) 347-370o
171 1 CHAIRMAN BENDER: I wouldn't go through it, 2 unless you want to show some disagreement. We wanted to be
~
, ' ') 3 sure that we understood where you thought you were going.
4 MR. BRINKMAN: This is my copy of the slide I'd
<x ~
( )
'"' 5 like to show you. It is in agreement with what Dr. Butler 6 said.
7 The only thing we did different is we took them 8 in. reverse order.
9 (Slide.)
10 Drag loads, which Dr. Butler mentioned -- and in it both cases I mentioned here we did review this with the 12 Mark II group and the NRC this week. A followup detailed 13 review with the NRC is planned, and early resolution is h* 14 expected.
15 The same thing with the SRV phasing and frequency.
16 These were considered in the design of the Zimmer plant, 17 but that analysis was done before the detailed NRC criteria 18 was received.
19 But we do believe that the Zimmer addresses the 20 intent of the NRC criteria, if not the letter, and.we are 21 going to have followup meetings with the Staff to review 22 that.
('; 23 The asymmetric load criteria, I agree exactly
(;
24 with what Dr. Butler said. We agree that the load definition is extremely conservative. Nevertheless, we are trying to
(')
v 25 cAce 9edeza{ cReporteu, Onc 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A S HIN'370 N. D.C. 20001 (201) 347-3700
172 1 ovaluate the plant. Right now we expect the containmnnt will 2 be able to accommodate these loads, and when we get the ,
(')
us 3 results certainly if we can accommodate the loads we'll >
4 just not argue about it.
5 DR. ZUDANS: You gave us the wrong page.
6- MR. .BRINKMAN: Did I?
7 DR. ZUDANS: You gave us the changes made, not 8 the issues.
9 MR. BRINKMAN: Okay. Well, you can have that ,
10 page if you want it.
11 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Maybe we'll read it and find 12 ,something we shouldn't know.
13 (Laughter.)
14 I hope you all don't take me seriously.
15 MR. BRINKMAN: T had my two piles of papers 16 shuffled. I really do have copies of the slide I just 17 showed. And here are the real copies. I'm sorry for that 18 confusion. I had the wrong slide on the wrong pile of 19 papers.
20 (Slide.) _
j i
21 Well, so much for what are the open issues , and 22 I have one more slide which I would like to show, which will try to summarize the Zimmer situation.
(]) 23 24 (Slide.)
() 25 The approach taken by Zimmer, as mentioned before, cAce 9edeta{ cReposteu, Snc 444 NORTM CAPITOL. STREET W APHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (801) 347 3700
. ~ . , .
173 1- was to use a bounding loads approach.
2 Another step taken was to replace the ramshead
() 3 safety valve discharge device with a quencher device, with 4 the intention to mitigate the safety valve loads.
5 Although we replaced the ramshead with the 6 quencher, we are continuing to use the ramshead load as the 7 design basis, the point being that we're taking no credit 8 for load mitigation of the quencher.
9 This is a point which appears to be -- but is 10 not -- a contradiction of Walt Butler's presentation. We 11 did combine all the dynamic loads absolute sums, and we 12 are presenting the results to the Staff.
13 We are saying that our official design basis
} 14 is SRSS because, in fact, there are specific examples where 15 we're going to ask for case-by-case exceptions to this 16 rule.-
17 We did have a meeting about a week ago with the 18 Staff, and we identified some specific areas. But by and 19 large, the great majority of the plant is taking absolute 20 load combinations, and we are committed to do that in our 21 closure report. We are using very conservative stress 22 allowables. I'm talking about the ASME A,B,C,D, stress
() 23 allowable criteria, and there we are again in agreement with the NRC criteria. :
24 1
1 25 . We have implemented significant plant modifications. )
f) v i
cAce 9edeza{ c.f forteu, .Onc. l 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 .
(aca) 347 370o
174 1 Wa hava a list of tha modifications. We have committad to 2 do in-plant safety relief valve testing to confirm that our
) 3 safety valve loads are indeed, less than the design basis.
v 4 My conclusion was that the containment issue i
5 was adequately addressed.
6 CHAIRMAN BENDER: All right, if there are no 7 questions of Mr. Brinkman on this subject I think we are at 8 a point where ue can lay the containment Mark II issues to 9 rest, until the San Jose meeting.
10 DR. PLESSET: San Francisco.
11 CHAIEUW BENDER: Excuse me, San Francisco. You 12 really pick good sites for those.
13 Let's see, the next item on the agenda is the p
'u) 14 status of the ACRS generic items.
15 Mr. Flynn, I believe you're going to go through 16 those in some fashion.
17 MR. FLYNN: It was my understanding that the 18 Staff was going to --
19 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Oh, excuse me. I think the 20 Staff was gJing to attack this one first. .
21 MR. PELTIER: We got to go first last time.
22 (Laughter.)
(') 23 This is not my favorite subject. It sometimes J
24 boggles the mind. But with your permission, I would like to just, while I'm here, touch upon two questions that were
(') 25 cAcc. 9edeta( cAeporten, Onc.
d44 NORTH C APITOL STR EET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (102) 347 3700
175 1 raised thic morning.
2 One of them had to do with the fuel pin rupture --
~
) 3 CHAIR *4AN BENDER: Excuse me, could you move the 4 mike a little closer to you? It's not carrying too well.
_)
'~'
5 MR. PELTIER: Is it all right if I address those 6 two subjects?
7 CHAIRMAN DENDER: Oh, sure.
8 MR. PELTIER: Of course the Staff is finding out 9 about the results of these tests at about the same time as 10 you gentlemen are, so we have had about one af ternoon to 11 really look into the subject and come up with some kind of 12 a preliminary assessment ~.
13 In recent PBF tests there were four rods that
(_) 14 were exposed to conditions of the rod drop, or a rod ejection 15 accident. And the preliminary results show that one 16 unirradiated rod fragmented severely at an energy below the 17 assumed coolability limit of 280 calories per gram.
18 A companion irradiated rod swelled up and filled 19 the shroud in the test rig. About 160 percent, I think, of 20 the original area.
21 These preliminary results indicate there was more 22 severe damage than was apparant in the earlier squirt test, 23 on which the 280 calories per gram limit was based. So l'^)s
\-
24 we'd like to point out here that there are several comments I i 25 or cautions that are relevant here.
'u /
cAce 9edeta{ cAcyotteza, $nc.
444 NOMTH C, APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001
'202) 347 3700
176 1
The praliminary estimate.of 250 calories par 2 gram for the RIA 1-1 may be in error, and the energy could 3 be as high as 350 calories per gram. In that case, the h'
-4 licensing limit would be exceeded and fuel fragmentation 5 would be expected.
6 The investigators, however, believe that their 7 preliminary estimate was close to the true value and burnup-8 measurements'are being made to confirm this value at.this 9 time.
10 More severe fuel damage is expected with flow 11 shroud than without the shroud. The shrouds were'used to-12 simulate the effect of adjacent rods and fuel bundles.
13 The Japanese tests in the NSRR show a reduction t 14 in the structural integrity limit of about 30 calories per 15 gram. This would be consistent with a reduction of 280 to
?
16 250 calories per gram when the shrouds are used. But the 17 degree of damage was less severe in the NSRR than in TGF.
18 The Japanese bundle tests show a reduction in ,
19 the structural integrity limit when compared with single 20 rod tests.
21 The swelling in the irradiated rods is not 22 understood.
23 DR. PLESSET: Irv, could I ask you a question?
24 I thought that was with a pressurized water reactor type
- 25 fuel. Am I wrong?
c: Ace 9edeza( cReporteu, Soc 444 NORTM CAPITOL. STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. a0001 (sos) 347.s70o
. - - - - - _ i _- _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ - _ . - __ _. . . _ . . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . ________J
177 1
MR. PELTIER: This is Saxton fuel, it's my 2 understanding.
( )
3 DR. PLESSET: That's PWR fuel. So it's not really 4 entirely pertinent, even though the instrumentation might have
)
G 5 been in error, as you point out, right?
6 MR. PELTIER: That's right. A 1 to 1 correlation.
7 So we conclude that the use of 280 calories per 8 gram to assure coolability may not be adequate. There are, 9 however, some extenuating circumstances in the rod drop EWR 10 and the rod ejection PWR analyses.
11 The rod drop and rod ejection accidents are very 12 unlikely events, and the need to even analyze these events 13 has been questioned. The physics analysis of the rod drop n 14 and the rod ejection accident is very conservative. Fuel
\_/
15 rods may not be capable of attaining 280 calories per gram.
16 The loss of fuel rod geonetry for the affected 17 rods would probably not challenge core Coolab.lity, since 18 the accident was very localized. Our method of acceptance, 19 however, would have to be reexamined since we presently rely 20 on the more conservative position.
- 21 On balance, we believe it is unlikely th'at the 22 rod drop or rod ejection accident could produce consequences
(')
L-23 worse than presently predicted.
24 We, therefore, believe that this item can be 25 resolved as a scheduled NRR generic activity for which a f ')
c0cc 9edeta[ cAepotietn, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A S HIN GTO N , D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
178 1 task action plan is being prapared at this timn, and the 2 plant schedule need not be affected.
/ 3 With respect to Zimmer, Zimmer has the bank 3 4 position control system, and analysis based on correct scram
! )
v 5 shapes we presently estimate that the rod drop accident at 6
Zimmer would result in a maximum fuel rod energy deposition 7 of less than 170 calories per gram. The worst case is the a worst situation for inoperable rods all grouped on one side.
9 So we think that at Zimmer the maximum is 170 to calories per gram under the worst conditions.
11 Are there any questions?
12 CHAIRMN1 BENDER: That may make the other 13 information sort of irrelevant, if it doesn't make any s ,
- J 34 difference what the heat input was in the PDF test. If you 15 only have to deal with 170 calories.
16 MR. PELTIER: Quite possibly.
17 On isolation valves, this morning a question was
. 18 raised about the Staff's criteria for acceptance of the jg two isolation. valves outside of the containment. I threw 20 out the answer that I thought maintenance was one of the
, 21 considerations, where actually the Staff's criteria has to 22 do with the severe environmental conditions and inspectability.
() 23 In those situations where the isolation valve inside would 24 be subject to a very severe environment, then we find it
) 25 acceptable outside.
cAce- 9edera( cReporteu, One 444 NORTH CAPITOL STR EET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
179
- 1. CHAIRMAN BENDER: Let me try the other avenue.
2 In the past, the reason why the valves have'been O 2 deeieneeed -e ineide end -e -eside wee eo en- for the 4 possibility of something shearing off the line at the 5 containment wall.
6 Now, are we saying that for these particular 7 circumstances we think it's a reasonable risk to ignore that 8 criterion? I'm not bothered by it, but I'm just wondering g whether that's the logic behind.
10 MR. PELTIER: Well, I think that's implicit in the acceptance. Whenever you have a situation where the i 11 12 extreme environmental conditions would affect the operation 13 of the isolation valve itself.
O 14 CHAIRMAN BENDER: I'm sure it's implicit, but 15 I just want to know whether the Staff is consciously 16 thinking about a relaxation, which is making its own safety 17 philosophy when it does that.
18 Maybe you don't want to answer that question.
19 MR. PELTIER: I don't believe I could answer 20 that.
21 MR. SCHOLL: I don't know if there is a situation 22 .in Zimmer where we have that.
23 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, I thought the SER said 24 there were a few places where they did, and that's why I'm O 25 e xine ene aue eioa-cAce 9edera{ cAepsteu, One 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D C. a0001 (aoa) 347 37oo
180 1 MR. SCHOLL: One of the issues in S$ction 7, one 2 of the areas of discussion in Section 7, had to do with the
\
()
-~ '
3 feedwater isolation valve, which is a motor operated valve
- 4 outside of the drywell, wherein there are two check valves v
5 in series, one inside the drywell, one outside the drywell, 6 and then you have these massive feedwater valves with a 7
40-second stroke time on them, which are manually initiated.
8 And they're provided to provide long-term leakage control 9 of leakage through the check valves.
to This is, understand, a traditional design for the 11 boiling water reactors. I sort of questioned it the first 12 time I'd seen it, Zimmer being my first operating license, 13 first boiling water operating license.
K/ 14 There are relatively few situations in a boiler 15 in which you have lines penetrating the drywell which are 16 not involved in the emergency core cooling process itself.
17 For instance, you have the valves in the lines jg that are associated with the suction from the suppression jg pool. These are valves which are normally open and which, 20 indeed, must be open to provide for emergency core cooling.
21 You have the main steam lines which have automatic 22 isolation valves, both inside and outside.
(')
v 23 You have the shutdown decay heat removal line, 24 which is isolated both inboard and outboard by normally
)
mj 25 closed motor-operated valves.
cAce 9edeza( cRepsten, Onc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHtNGTON, D.C. 20o01 M
181 1
You have some -- we've discussed the feedwater 2
line.
~l 3 wi And these are the major lines. Other lines you el have going in are in contact only with the containment L) 5 atmosphere such as your hydrogen control system, you have a 6
pneumatic line which provides service air for charging your
-0 accumulators for the AES valves, and the relief valves.
MR. PELTIER: I thought the question dealt with 9
the Staff's acceptance of two isolation valves outside of 10 containment.
Il CHAIRMAN BENDER: That's what the question was.
12 MR. PELTIER: And I don't know what the specific
'3 instance is where there is the two isolation valves outside -
/s j .
I4 the containment, or on what basis the Staff might hav 15 accepted it.
16 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, I don't have time to U
tt through the SER.
IO MR. SCHOLL: Yousve got some motor-operated
- valves in the ECCS lines where you've got check valves 20 inboard, and then your motor-operated valves outboard.
21 MR. PELTIER: We'll look into that further.
22 CHAIRMAN BENDER: I'm not really trying to do 23
) more than just find out what the logic is. I'm not all that 24 concerned about it. But generally speaking, the practice 25
) has been to have one inside and one outside.
cAce- 9ederal cReportcu, .Onc.
444 N OR TH CAPITOL STREET W ASHIN GTO N, D.C. 2MCl (202) 347-3700
182 1 MR. SCHOLL For th$ praccur. r plants, 2 that's true.
m
) 3 CHAIRWUT BENDER: Go ahead, Irv.
v
, 4 MR. PELTIER: On the ACRS generic concerns, thls
/
)
S table, as I explained earlier today --
6 (Slide.)
7 -- describes where the Staff has embodied the scope of the 8 ACRS concern into its task action plan, and also refers to 9 our May 4 status report to the Committee. We have not 10 updated that report since May 4, and it's my understanding 11 that that might be done in the next month.
12 Now I guess I've got the wrong slide up there.
13 It's not the one I want.
/^;
m) 14 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, I'm hoping that you're 15 going to address the items that are listed in item VII of 16 our agenda, which selected a few specific things that we 17 wanted to know what was happening as they apply to this 18 plant.
I 19 (Slide.)
20 MR. PELTIER: Yes.
21 Well, the few areas where we have addressed the l
1 22 lspecificconcerntosomeextentonthisspecificplantare
() ,
23 indicated with the SER section number up there.
24 So I'll now start in on those items which I believe you listed in your agenda, and I'll probably need a
(' ) 25 c0cc. 9edeta{ cAepciteu, .0nc add NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (102) 347 3700
183 1 lot of help.
2 The ACRS concern about stress corrosion cracking:
) 3 The Staff issued NUREG-75067, which was a j
<~3 4 technical report on the investigation and evaluation of wi 5 cracking in austenitic stainless steel piping in boiling 6 Water reactors.
7 That report came out some time ago, and the 8 Staff had considered that problem resolved for the BWR 9 plants. More recently, July of '77 and October of '77, 10 the Staff issued NUREG-0313 and NUREG-0312 as guidance on 11 the -- these are technical reports -- on materi tl selection 12 and processing guidelines for BWR coolant pressure boundary 13 piping, and interim technical report on BWR feedwater and 14 control rod drive nozzle cracking.
15 We have asked the Applicant to respond to these is NUREG guides, asking them how they are implementing them at 17 the present time. In various meetings we have had the 18 opportunity to discuss this matter with the Applicant and 19 feel that their implementation, up to a point, is acceptable 20 to us.
21 However, they have not formally responded to us, 22 to my knowledge, on NUREG-0313.
Now, recent events, however, in the BWR plants (o_) 23 24 have kind of opened up the door here a little bit more with o
) 25 regard to intergranular stress corrosion, and we may in the cAce 9edeta{ c.Repo:teu, Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 l (202) 347 3700
184 1
future he asking some more questions of the BWR plants.
2 Included in those questions are questions about
) 3 this collet retainer ring and control rod drive, which I 4
73 believe was a question asked this morning.
()
6 The resolution of the routing of the control rod 6 drive hydraulic return lines I believe is an error in the 7
SER. In that respect this application is not rerouting the 8 They are letting the water control rod drive return lines.
9 return to the reactor vessel through the control rod drive 10 seals, but they are valving the return lines off.
11 Now, as a consequence of valving the return lines 12 off and having a stagnant line, they will have to take 13 additional measures to assure that problems aren't developed p
- 14 due to stress corrosion in the stagnant lines.
15 So that whole area requires some further 16 discussion.
17 We also -- I think I pointed this out earlier --
18 have asked the Applicant for his augmented in-service 19 inspection program, so that he could detect cracks at these 20 nozzles and the plant radii, and he has not provided us yet 21 with a satisfactory program in that area.
22 I think the Applicant can probably tell you better i
(,j 23 than I can just exactly what plant modifications were made 24 in the implementation.of this fix. I know he has removed 25 He is valving off the
) the bypass line on the recirc system.
cAce- 9edeta{ cReporteu, Soc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S HINGTO N. D.C. RMol (201) 347-3700
185 1 control rod driva returns. Tha safr ends, I balinve, wcra 2 carbon steel originally. I don't know whether I've hit all i ') 3 of the changes or not.
4 CHAIRMAN BENDER: There are a number of items lD 5 l listed in the SER. Are all of them listed there?
6 MR. PELTIER: I believe so, but I'm not sure 7 right at this point.
8 CHAIRMAN BENDER: If they're listed there, I 9 don't think we need to hear them again.
10 MR. PELTIER: I think that section needs to have 11 some work done on it, because I don't think it's current or 12 100 percent accurate at this time. ,
13 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, we don't need to know fm
) 14 them now anyway. I think sometime in the future if we could 15 have them we could save people the pain of trying to count 16 through everything now.
17 DR. ZUDANS: The things that you named are 18 listed.
19 MR. PELTIER: That's the advantage of having 20 read it in the last few hours, I guess.
21 DR. ZUDANS: Last few minutes.
22 MR. PELTIER: ATWS, I don't know what I could say
/~) 23 about ATUS, other than the fact that I think we are a
24 anticipating the Committee responding to our ATWS report,
^', '
25 NUREG-0460, which was issued in April, I believe, and it's L.) l l
cAce 9edeia[ cAeposters, .Onc.
e44 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A $ HIN GTO N. D.C. 2 MCI (202) 34747M
186 1 my undarstanding that tha Committae is going to giva us 2 some feedback in January.
[) 3 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, I think maybe we'd better 4 get you in phase.
5 I think at the moment we're waiting for the Staff 6 to respond to what amounts to the last evaluation by GE of 7 ATWS.
8 MR. IS RAEL: Could I just --
9 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Yes, Sandy, go ahead.
10 MR. ISRAEL: I believe the Staff has scheduled 11 a meeting with the Committee on December 8 to come forward 12 with our final recommendations dealing with both new plants 13 and old plants at that time.
) 14 Hopefully we'll come to some resolution as a 15 result of that meeting.
16 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, since the operating 17 license for this plant is imminent, it seems to make rather 18 gesd sense to try to settle the issue as fast as possible.
19 MR. PELTIER: Loss of on-site and off-site AC 20 and reliability of direct current power systems.
21 Ray, do you think you could address that subject?
22 MR. SCHOLL: You have several considerations with i
l C 'i 23 regard, first of all, to loss of all alternating current, E_)
24 not the least of which is the boiler design provides for i ~i.) 25 the reactor core isolation cooling system which is a turbine cAce 9ederal cRepsteu, Dne.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000t (201) 347 3700
187 1 driven systrm. Tha spend controls for tha turbino system 2 come off of an inverter which is, in turn, driven by a m
) 3 DC bank.
~
4 So in effect the plant is capable of operating i
'~'
)
5 for a period -- quote -- operating -- being shut down, 6 safely shut down, operating, maintaining an adequate vessel 7 level, for approximately 30 minutes or so, as a minimum, e only on DC power and stored steam in the reactor vessel, g When you start looking at typical lengths of 10 time that we have seen power blackouts of large central 11 stations in this country that are provided with emergency 12 diesels, this is a significant period of time. I think 13 the greatest loss cf time that we've seen in a nuclear power
(-
m) 14 station where they'd lost off-site power has been on the 15 order of something like 17 minutes.
16 CHAIRMAN BENDER: I'm sorry, I don't think I --
17 I don't know the context in which you're saying that, but is I know of more than one plant that has had no off-site 19 power for of the order of a day. So let's be careful what
~
20 we're saying.
21 MR. SCHOLL: Well, like I said, the one I was 22 aware of was on the order of 17 minutes.
a
) 23 We have on this plant, in addition to the two 24 off-site sources, we have a situation with the boiling water
(~') 25 reactor in which you have three full-size diesel generators, wj cAce- 9edera[ cAepoticu, Snc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (act) 347 s700
188 1
any one of which could supply the neesssary electrical 2 power, but is not, in the case of the HDCS diesel, is not
() 3 necessarily hooked up in a manner which could provide all 4 the power needed for long-term shutdown, ;
5 With regard to the DC systems in this plant, 6 again we have the three divisions of DC -- not two divisions.
7 We are not in the traditional problem area that one worries B about, in that the protection system is not derived from l 9 an inverter from a DC bank. We are talking about a 10 protection system which is being powered from a pair of 11 motor generator sets off the AC.
12 So loss of a DC bank will not create a situation 13 wherein you scram and immediately need some form of 14 engineered safety feature.
15 There have been no formal" reliability studies 16 of the DC systems in this plant, as the Committee requested i 1
17 be done on Perkins and Cherokee before they come in for an )
i 18 OL, i
19 The last thing I'd like to say, in closing, is 20 that there is something unique about the DC systems for 21 the Zimmer Station, in that they have been provided battery
~
22 monitors which will determine whether or not the battery 23 is, indeed, connected to the DC bus. That is to say, if
(])
24 the battery is there physically and capable of delivering
[]) 25 electrical power to the bus, by measuring the differential cAce 9edezaf cAeportcu, Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STRECT W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001
- < ' (a0a) 347.s70o
189 1
voltages between the bus and the battery, so you won't be 2
operating for a long period of time on the battery charger O 2 end think you heve the bettery, end indeed noe heve the 4
battery connected to the bus -- which certainly gets rid 5 of one of the problems that one has with a high-current 6 system wherein you think you've got the battery there, but 7 when you call on it you end up with a high-resistance path 8 and you can't get any energy out of the battery.
9 That's about all I can say with regard to the 10 question of loss of off-site and on-site AC. We recognize 11 that with the transformers down in a flood plain, that given
, 12 the design basis flood'you are going to lose all off-site 13 power.
14 I have nothing else to add.
15 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Recognizing that last point, 16 that there is still, of course, the possibility of running 17 the diesels for a long time, until the 69 IN power could be 18 restored, the SER says you could run for 200 days --
19 MR..SCHOLL: Without maintenance.
20 CHAIRMAN BENDER: What is your objective? How 21 soon would you want to have -- would you set as a minimum 22 time for restoring off-site power subsequent to a flood, 23 as a matter of safety philosophy?
[]
24 MR. SCHOLL: The problem comes up with how O 2s severe the f1ood is, hut we --
cAce 9ederal cReporte;s, .One.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. a0001 (aca) uv.a7oo
190 1 CHAIRMAN BENDER: .I'm going to. inundate the 2 69 KV station,,and I want to know what you're going to do.
{} 3
.. SCHOLL: Well, our concern was -- and my 4- concert when they took me up on the roof of that O 5 buildii 3 e refueling trunk that they have 6 on the tt , can barge in oil to refuel those 7 diesels, f. ' feet up off of grade level. That was very s impressive.
9 And I became worried, if they're going to have to a flood of that magnitude, where literally they-were going 11 to go in with a design where they wers noing to barge oil 12 to the plant, the ground would be so soft how would they 13 ever get a heavy transformer, replacement transformer, in
( 14 to the plant?
15 It was conceivable that the water might not 16 recede around the plant grade level for almost 30 days under 17 a situation like that. I'd be looking for Noah and his Ark, 18 quite frankly. l 19 I became concerned about it and we discussed it 20 with Cincinnati Gas & Electric.
21 The answer to your question of restoration of 22 Power is really one of how big the flood is and how much 23 damage has been done to Cincinnati's distribution system.
(])
24 I just can't put a time on it.
Let me comment on that, because I
() 25 DR. BUTLER:
c0ce. ]cdeta[ cAeportets, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (aoa) 347.a700
191 1- was familiar with one of the Category-A tasks that we were 2 working on in DOR, and that had to do with the grid stability
() 3 issue.
4 One of the things that they're concerned about m) 5 there is what kind of guidance should we be giving industry 6 with respect to dedicating available power to the nuclear 7 plants. And if'it appears that you can island a nuclear 8 plant, and have AC power available, if that power is limited 9 and cannot supply the entire market, the first market it 10 probably ought to supply is the nuclear plant needs.
11 I think this is something that might come out of 12 that grid stability Category-A task Number A-35.
13 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, the Ohio River being a O 14 navigable river, I suspect that if worse came to worst you 15 could probably bring in some kind of a floating power plant 16 to provide some supplemental power in some way, if that 17 were important. .
18 Our interest at the moment is in knowing that 19 there's a rationale for the circumstance.
20 DR. ZUDANS: Even if you did do that you could 21 not restore the operation, because your cooling tower would 22 be down.
O 23 Cuarna^u urnora= we doa'e =eed ene ooo11ae 24 towers. All we need --
() 25 DR. ZUDANS: To operate?
I cAce 9edera{ cReporteu, Soc.
4M NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 30001 (301) 347 3700
192 j
1 CHAIRMAN. BENDER: No, we're --
2 MR. SCHOLL: It wasn't a question of running the i
() 3 plant. The question was maintaining the core sufficiently 4 cool.
5 DR. ZUDANS: Oh, I'm sorry.
1 6 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, I think that's enough 7 'for now on the subject. But we're contin 2ing to give some 8 attention to that matter, and while this area hasn't had a 9 flood of that magnitude in a very long time, floods have a-10 way of doing strange things in these areas.
11 Go ahead, Irv.
12 MR. PELTIER: Instruments to follow the. course 13 of an accident:
A
(_) 14 Reg Guide 197, Instrumentation for Light Water 15 Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Set Plant Conditions During 16 and Following an Accident, is not, of course, applicable 17 to Zimmer at the CP stage. It's only applicable to plants 18 after September 30, 1977.
19 Ray, what can you tell us about the status of 20 our review in that area?
21 MR. SCHOLL: First of all, the plant is providing 22 what has become a traditional suite -- or suit, if you wish --
23 of instruments. The ICSB is not responsible for determining
[}
24 the adequacy of the parameters measured, but merely the 25 adequacy of the instrumentation to cover those parameters.
[']'
R.
cAce. 9edesa[ cAcyoztet1, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (aca) 347.s700
193 :
1 .And I have been given no indication of any-nood for'any 2 additional instrumentation beyond that which GE and the
-Applicant have reported in Section 75.
(])- 3 1
-4 However, there is a minor problem with regard to
~() 5 the design of the suppression pool spray system, in that 6 they're going to have to provide additional instrumentation 7 to initiate the containment spray when you get above.35 ,
8 pounds. ,
9 It's not clear to me at this time whether or not 10 t6e Containment Systems Branch will require additional 11 indication to go along with that high-range switch. I 12 don't know, quite frankly, at this time.
13 As you indicated also, we are entering into some
() 14 generic discussions with General Electric with regard to 15 the use of non Class-lE instruments to handle transients.
16 Whether you would consider a transient which would be ,
17 potentially large enough to cause core damage to require 18 post-accident monitoring or not is a matter of semantics, 19 l perhaps. 7
- 1 20 But the fact.is that we are going to be looking i 21 at that area as additional instrumentation required as the 22 result of these transients. And we'll know more when it comes time to write the SER. Satterfield, and Charlie
(]) 23 24 Miller and Dale Thatcher from our group, and some people from RSB are flying out to San Jose Sunday night.
(]) 25 c0cc 9edeta{ cAepotteu, Onc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 ,
(302) 347 3700
194 1 CHAIRMAN BENDER: W311, wa know that you'ra 2 working very hard on the Mark II containment questions, of
') 3 which that is one.
/
4 MR. SCHOLL: Yes, sir. l
)
5 CHAIRMAN BENDER: That's not what we had in mind.
6 We've had a long and continuing discussion with the Staff 7 about instrumentation following the course of the accident, 8 and it's not very satisfying to know that the Instrument 9 Controls Branch has not been apprised of the need to look 10 into the matter.
11 MR. SCHOLL: We have not been required -- and I 12 want to clarify that --
13 MR. ISRAEL: Ray, can I try to shed some AAght g
) 14 on that?
15 MR. SCHOLL: Yes.
16 MR. ISRAEL: I believe you're talking about the 17 implementation of Reg Guide 1.97. The implementation is 18 in limbo right now.
19 As you recall, several months back we had proposed 20 looking at it on I think four typical plants. That 73 implementation scheme has fallen by the wayside. It's in 22 limbo now, as to how we are going to go about it.
"% 23 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, does that mean that
]
24 Zimmer is also in limbo?
MR. ISRAEL: No, I don't believe it was intended 7-) 2S J
cAcc. Jedeta{ cRepoticu, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
. . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . ._ - _. . . . ..~ . - - . _. .
.195 1
'to be implemented on 'Zimmer. i
'2 CHAIRMAN BSNDER: Well', are'you saying that.
h 3 nothing is' going'to'be done itith plants'that are under 4
construction and that are already operating? !
.O 5 MR. ISRAEL: I believe --
6' CIIAIRMAN . BENDER: I don't think the Committee ,
7 ever agreed to any.such thing. The Committee has.not been 8
- aware of what the Staff's position is, but I know the 9
Committee has never said that it would accept the position 10 where all existing plants would have no further monitoring.
11 We don't know what you're planning to do,'but 12 I think the Staff ought to look'at what it plans to do.
13 We've told them that a number of times, and somewhere along.
14 the way one ~of these plants is going to have to face the 15 issue squarely in the matter.of when a-letter is received. '
10 from the Committee concernin'g licensing.
17 I don't know whether it should be this one.
18 Go ahead.
19 MR. PELTIER: Recirculation pump overspeed during 20 a LOCA:
21 The Staff is still reviewing this subject. The 22 Applicant's position is that parts of the impeller cannot 23 be destructive missiles because of restraints on the broken 24 pipe, 25 When we finish our review we will require cAce- 9edera( cAeporters, .Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
.b...--.._.____
y i
1 decouplers if it's deemed. desirable at that time. However, 2
we do not have a position on that at this moment.
3 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Are you, going to settle that 4
before the Zimmer operating license?
5 MR. PELTIER: I don't believe so.
6
-Do you know what's going on there, Bob?
7
.MR. ' BOSNAK: No. I know it's under review, and ,
8 I don't expect'that it will be settled by the time of the 8
Zimmer --
10 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Are you planning to grandfather ,
- 11 the Zimmer plant?
12 MR. BOSNAK: I can't answer that question.
13 DR. ZUDANS: I have a question'in relation.to O thee.
16 It appears 'to me not clear why would decouplers 10 help? ,
17 MR. PELTIER: I don't think I know the answer.
18 I don't know the technical details.
l9 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, it's been a generic item 1
20 for some time. The Committee has boon trying to get it 21 settled, and the Staff has been sitting on it for a long 22 time. l l
23 MR. ROBARE: May I say something about that?
24 CIIAIRMAN BENDER: Sure.
25 MR. ROBARE: My name is Dave Robare from General ,
( I cAcc- 9edera{ cAcportets, $nc.
444 NOf4TH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 847 3700
- . .- . . . . - , ~ . . . . . . . . . . - . ~ . . . _ . . - . _ . . _ , _ . _ . - _ . ~ . _ . _ . . _ _ . - . _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . - _ .
197 ,
1 Electric.
2 I work on the generic problem of the decoupler.
l 3 There are two aspects: One is the pump motor
})
4 overspeed, for which a decoupler would help. We submitted r
' ') 5 a report in May of this year, showing that a decoupler would 6 not be needed, and pump overspeed, even if it wert Lv occur, 7 would still not be a problem in that the pump would contain--
8 or the motor would contain the missiles, the rotor burst 9 missiles.
10 The matter of the pump impeller missile coming 11- out of the break in the pipe is a little different concern.
12 We look at that on a plant-by-plant basis and determine the 13 break locations per the Reg Guide 1.46 and evaluate possible
( ,) 14 trajectory targets of such a missile.
15 And I'm not sure of Zimmer. I assume we've done 16 that evaluation there and have concluded that the pump 17 impeller missile is not a hazard. _
18 DR. ZUDANS: Would the missile be able to 19 penetrate the casing of the pump?
20 MR. ROBARE: No.
21 DR. ZUDANS: Just the open end?
22 MR. ROBARE: Just the open end of the pipe.
23 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Why is it that the Germans have 24 Put in a decoupler?
25 MR. ROBARE: There was a period a few years ago
}
cAce 9ede-af cReportcu, Dn:.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
198 1
from a pre;vioua study when it was conclud:;d that n decoupler 2 would be required and advisable. Perhaps they took the l 3 advice at that time.
.s
) '
4 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, they haven't changed it,
,_s
)
5 the last time I talked to anyone there, they were still 6 plumping for a decoupler which they thought was workable.
7 I would think that you would know about it. You 8 people are experts on boiling water reactors, I'm told.
9 MR. ROBARE: You say they have a decoupling 10 device? Or are they anticipating putting one in?
11 CHAIRMAN DENDER: They are putting them in, as 12 I understand it.
13 Is there someone from the Staff here that knows J 14 a little about the subject?
15 Well, they're putting one in, and I think youd 16 be well advised to look into the matter and determine what 17 it is the Germans are doing, and we'd like to know whether 18 it's a good idea or not. And whether it's a convenient 19 Solution to a sticky problem that has a lot of subjective 20 judgment in it.
21 MR. ROBARE: It's clearly our advice right now, 22 our recommendation, that a decoupling device is not needed, 23 and we have the report submitted in May that provides that i
24 justification.
25 CHAIRMAN BENDER: I think it would be surprising
{])
c0ce 9edeta{ cReportcu, Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL, STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
199 1 if GE didn't try to encourage that position.
2 Go ahead, Mr. Peltier.
MR. PELTIER: Loose parts monitoring:
(}. 3 4 The Applicant has committed to provide loose
' () 5 parts monitors, and says he will have two sensors at each 6 natural collection region in the primary system capable of 7 .5 foot pounds,within about 3 feet of the sensor.
8 Vibration monitoring: .
9 We have no approved task on this as yet, and 10 there isn't any more I can say about vibration monitoring.
11 There is none on the plant, and we do not intend to require 12 any.
13 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Does the' loose parts' monitor
() 14 that GE is planning to put in have adequate sensitivity to f 15 find the kind of loose parts that are relevant to boiling 16 water reactors?
17 MR. PELTIE.R: Well, as I just mentioned, it's 18 a .5 foot pounds within 3 feet of the sensor, and I'm not 19 sure how that compares with the experience.
20 DR. ZUDANS: It's not an acoustic emissions 21 device?
22 CHAIRMAN BENDER: No. It's a sound pickup 23 device, as I understand it, coupled through the water system,
/}
24 if it's like all the others I know about.
25 MR. GIVAN: Dick Givan, Sargent & Lundy. The
(])
c0cc 9edezaf cReporteu, Dnc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (aCa) u?.s700
200 1 system which we have planned is not a GE systcm. It's a 2 system which we have specified for the plant. It is an
() "
3 acoustical type pickup.
, 4 We do have plans to look at the capabilities of
' ,s'i s being able to detect where the loose part is and the size 6 of the loose part.
- Is it a new system, or one that 7 CHAIRMAN DENDER:
a has been used in other places?
9 MR. GIVAN: We haven't procured the system yet.
10 The requirements are pretty much the type that have been ij utilized previously in other locations.
12 CHAIRMAN BENDER: In pressurized water reactors?
13 MR. GIVAN: BWR's and PWR's. Basically, two 7
_/
14 companies in the United States provide this, B&W and Atomics 15 International.
16 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Thank you.
17 MR. PELTIER: I believe that's the end of the is list that was on the agenda.
19 DR. ZUDANS: I have one question on an item that 20 wasn't called out.
21 In your submission you say water hammer, specific 22 designs to reduce water hammer. What can you design that f') 23 you're sure that water hammer will not occur? What specific v
24 design?
'^ The Zimmer plant is provided with
) 25 MR. PELTIER:
,/
) cAce- 9ederal cReporters, Dnc.
/ 444 NORTH C APITCl STREET WASHINGTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
201 1 jockey pumps, I believe, to keep the critical lines filled 2 with water at all times for the emergency core cooling 3 system. So that the water to the lines are kept full, and
({})
4 these systems are monitored for their continuous operations.
5 DR. ZUDANS: Of course, if the water is empty you 6 don't have water hammer, you have some other thing that 7 shows like water hammer. If the line is full, that's the 8 only time you can have water hammer. And water hammer is 9 generated at valves when you close them or open them, this 10 type of thing.
~
11 So we're really not talking about water hammer 12 of this type, we're talking about something else.
13 MR. PELTIER: Sandy, will you talk to that?
(~)N 1._ 14 MR. ISRAEL: Yes. Let me address that, Dr.
15 Zudans.
16 There's a generic activity, of course, dealing l
17 with water hammer that's been going on now for about a l 18 year.
1 19 In reviewing the LER's in operating plants, one 20 of the recurring causes of water hammer in boilers is 21 voided lines in ECCS systems.
22 Periodically, when the lines are voided they get l
'^3 23 water hammer as they accelerate the water and it gets up
~J l 24 against the check valve.
') 25 Jockey pumps have been installed in plants now c0ce 9edera{ cReporteu, .Onc.
444 NORTH CAPf70L STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. EM01 (202) 347 3700
202 I
.1 for.five or-six years, with varying degrees of success in 2 keeping the lines filled. ,
-3 As part.of this generic activity on water hammer, 4 the Staf f has been trying to determine the most ef fective O 5 jockey pump system that should be installed.
6 We will also be looking at other forms of water s
.7 hammer in this generic activity. However, those have not !
i 8 appeared -- valve clesings, pump starts, and those other 9 types of water hammer -- have not appeared to be a problem 10 thus far. ,
11 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Let me ask the consultants i 12 whether they have any items they would like to raise.
13 Steve?
14 MR. DITTO: No.
15 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Walt?
16 MR. LIPINSKI: No.
17 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Dr. Zudans, do you have other 18 things?
19 DR. ZUDANS: I've had my share.
20 CHAIRMAN BENDER: You've had enough for now?
21 Well, I think we've pretty much covered the 22 agenda, and most of it I think has been done quite well. ,
23 What the Subcommittee will do henceforth I think 24 to some degree depends upon the results of the meeting in 25 San Francisco on the Mark II containment. We may have to c0cc- 9edeta{ cReporteu, Soc. '
d44 NORTH CAPITOL. STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 4700 )
. . . _ . . . _ _ . - . ._,,_2.___
203 I have another Subcommittic mSeting, and we may not. I think 2
the Subcommittee will have to think about that some. If
) 3 we do, it probably will be largely associated with the 4
<m status of the Mark II containment.
'_jI
~
l 5
I think we do have some interest in one or two 6 of these generic items that seem to be floating around 7 loose, of which the instrumentation following the course 8 of the accident seems to be one that has, in my opinion, 9 taken a reverse turn. And I think we're not likely to be 10 too happy about that. We may want to hear more about it 11 before we bring this application to the full Committee.
12 Whether other generic items need to be dealt 13 with that way, it would be premature to judge at this time, p
ks' 14 The Committee is having a Subcommittee meeting 15 on generic items in December, and at that time we will take 16 a look at the status of some of these things. Perhaps that 17 will shed some light on the current circumstances.
18 Does the Applicant have any things that it wants 19 to bring up at this point? )
20 MR. FLYNN: We can, at this time, address the 21 generic items from our point of view, if you wish to go l
l 1
22 into that. l f'}
t-23 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, I think we'd be pleased 24 to have anything that you might want to add to what the 25 Staff has already said.
)
&ce- federal cReporters, .One.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. SMOl (202) 347 3700
=. - ._
204 ,
1 MR. FLYNNs All right.
2 ~For the first two items, stress corrosion crack-
{) 3 ing and the ATWS,-I'll ask Herb Brinkman to comment.
i 4 MR. BRINIUiAN : Well, I think Irv Peltier pretty f '
5 Well covered that situation.
6 We have discussed inspection programs with the i
7 Staff. I think that we do have general agreement that what.
S they're proposing would be acceptable, and it is our 9 intention to document that in an upcoming FSAR mnendment 10- in the very near term.
11 On ATWS, the folks on the-Committee seem to be 12 as knowledgeable as anybody. We're following the generic 13 program and we have proposed some solutions and if accepted we're proposed to go through with the proposed solutions.
(]) 14 DR. ZUDANS: On stret4s corrosion cracking, GE 15 16 recommended a number of different procedures how to make 17 these welds so that you remove the residual stresses and 33 what not.
39 Is there one of these methods that you will 20 follow in making up your pipe?
. .MR . BRINKMAN: All of our pipe is made up. The 21 22 piping for the Zimmer Station has been investigated and is 23 found to be a very low carbon content, some number like
,)
24
.03.
MR. SMITH: Yes, and on the safe end for the r3 25
-NJ cAce. 9ederal cReporteu Daa 444 NORTM CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 2M01 (303) 847 3700
205 1 recire it's less than .03.
2 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Will you identify yourself, l
3 please?
4 MR. SMITH: Walt Smith, General Electric, Project +
O 5 Manager for Zimmer.
i 6 On the safe end for the recirc piping the certi-
, fied material report indicates less than .03 percent carbon.
8 Now, the carbon content on the piping is higher than .03. I i
9 I think it's up in the range of .06, .07.
10 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Is Zimmer unique in having this 11 low carbon content?
12 MR. SMITH: Zimmer was ordered at the time we 13 started realizing the importance of specifying low carbon, O 14 durine e erensitionery period.
And then efter thee ecme of 15 the plants went to inconel safe ends, which I think you 16 have on some of the plants like LaSalle, Brunswick and 17 Duane Arnold.
is We lucked out.
19 CHAIRMAN BENDER: We hope. ,
20 Go ahead.
21 MR. BRINKMAN: I'm finished.
22 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Dr. Zudans?
23 DR. ZUDANS: Well, I guess inconel had a bigger 24 problem and you had to stress relieve the residual stresses out, and so forth.
] 25 On this one you don't have that.
cAce. 9edezal c.Reporteu, .Gnc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET '
WA$HINGTON. D.C. 2000t (aCa) 347.s70o
~~ ' ~
206 I 4
1 1 -That maans you are using now an ultimate material.
2 That's one of the solutions.
~
t( ) 3 .MR. SMITH: On Zimmer we'use 304. On the fixes 4 on the plants'that have inconel now, I believe, should they
.() 5 be modified or replaced, I think they're recommending 316L.
6 CIIAIRMAN . BENDER: Okay.
7 Do you want to cover the rest? ;
B MR. FLYNN: Our next one, loss of on-site and 9 off-site power, we'll refer you to question 221.363 which 10 we responded to in the FSAR, which addresses the loss of 11 the 69 KV.
12 The next item, instruments to follow the course 13 of the accident, Jim Schott will address that.
( 14 MR. SCHOTT: I don't believe I'll be able to 15 satisfy the Committee's concerns, but I would like to point 16 out for your information an additional system that you may 17 or may not be aware of.
18 We have at Zimmer what we call the post-LOCA, 19 monitoring system, which consists of -- the radiation monitor-20 ing portion of that system consists of redundant ionization 21 channels that read out in the control room. It is a system 22 that is seismicly qualified. It is redundant and diverse.
And it is designed to withstand the effects of the LOCA.
(]) 23 24 It continuously samples containment atmosphere f'D. 25 and returns the sampled volume back to the containment. We v
cAce 9edeta{ c.Reporteu, .One. l 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET l W A SHIN GTO N. D.C. a0001 j (aoa) 347 370o
207 1 also hava that rer. ding out to the operator on two indicator 2 recorders in the control room.
3 We have continuous meteorological information
{]'1 4 feed to a mini-computer that is printed on demand or 5 routinely, on a typer in the control room.
6 We have in process charts, graphs, and procedures 7 are under development now such that given the radiation 8 dose that the post-LOCA radiation monitoring system sees, 9 the meteorological conditions and the duration of the 10 release, the operator or the person responsible for 33 calculating the downwind dose can do so, and he can contin-12 uously plot the course of any radiation release at any 13 point in time that he desires.
(m s) 14 We have the capability of being able to immediately 35 assess the accident classification that our emergency plan 16 Categorizes, and we also are able to predict what radiation 17 doses are at the site boundary, low-population , zone boundary, is or any point downwind out to 50 miles.
19 So I just would like to point that out to you.
20 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well ,that is a supplemental 21 capability that is not available in many places that I 22 know of.
T 23 You're right, it doesn't satisfy all of our
~)
24 interests, but I think our real concern is that the Staff
(~l 25 has not yet reached the point of knowing what constitutes cAce 9edeta( cReporteu, Dnc.
Add NORTH C APITOL STREET W AS HIN GTON, D.C. 20001 (302) 347 3700
208 1 a suitablo complement of instrumentation to put on a plant.
2 I don't necessarily see it as a unique problem of the
) 3 Applicant. It seems to me that the Staff has some obligation
(~J L
4 to come to a position on what it thinks is adequate, and
)
5 we're anxious to hear them bring that point to some satis-c factory resolution.
7 Do you want to go ahead with other points?
8 MR. FLYNN: Yes. Point 6, the loose parts 9 monitoring, Dick Givans has already indicated our position 10 on that.
11 The remaining two points, recirc pump overspeed 12 during a LOCA and vibration monitoring, Dick Johnson, from 13 GE, will address those.
,o
() _
14 MR. JOHNSON: On the recirc pump overspeed 15 problem, Dave Robare of course did cover that earlier. I 16 just would like to add that in foreign plants they usually 17 wait until the NRC has passed judgment on something before 18 they will adopt it. And this may be the case there shere 19 they're waiting to see if the NRC agrees with GE's 20 recommendation that there's no need for decouplers.
21 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, that's quite possible.
22 I'm not trying to downgrade your position. But I just said l
('T 23 it didn't surprise me that yours was what it was, i L) 24 MR. JOHNSON: Right. And we will look into that
) 25 further. But we understand that the NRC is about to reach LJ cAce. Jederal cReportcu, One 444 ># ORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 2Mo t (202) 347 3700
209 1 a conclusion on that. During the Hatch ACRS m: stings wa 2 were told that they were about to submit an answer to us, and we hope to get that pretty soon.
} '
3 4 On the last part, vibration monitoring, which is
_,s T ')
~
5 separate from loose parts monitoring program, Zimmer, of 6 course, is of the same type of reactor system as the PWR-4, 7 and we are using the Fitzpatrick reactor as a prototype 8 reactor at this point. .
9 In addition, to cover all the minor differences, 10 we are monitoring recirc system piping because we have a 11 five-fold jet pump instead of a single pump, and we're 12 also monitoring for vibration in the shroud.
13 So those things will be done for Zimmer, and em
(_) ja will be evaluated.
15 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Very good.
16 DR. ZUDANS: I think I have one more question, 17 because I feel uneasy.
18 Can you, from GE, explain to me why do you feel 19 that there is no intergranular stress corrosion problem on 20 this plant? I heard some comments at --
21 MR. JOHNSON: I'm not saying that there's no 22 problem. I3m sae'ng that Zimmer has taken positive steps --
('T 23 DR. ZUDANS: Such as?
U 24 MR. JOHNSON: -- to minimize the problem.
(i 25 DR. ZUDANS: Such as?
%J cAcc. Jedeta( rAepticu, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
23 9 1 MR. JOHNSON: Such as valving out the CRD return 2 lines, which --
) 3 DR. ZUDANS: That's only one location.
4 MR. JOHNSON: We have removed the recirculation 5 bypass. They have advanced materials that are used, such as 6 the welded feedwater sleeve and the low carbon content that 7 we talked about earlier.
8 So there are certain things that we're trying to 9 do. And in Zimmer's case, almost having completed construc-10 tion, it's very difficult to incorporate a lot of the new 11 advantages of plants that are just beginning construction.
12 DR. ZUDANS: But you are not recommending any-13 thing like stress relieving, or things like that?
f3 x_) 14 MR. JOHNSON: Well, it's quite possible. I'm 15 sure that Cincinnati Gas is using -- well, maybe Herb can ,
16 elaborate further on that kind of implementation.
17 MR. BRINKMAN: I think you're probably referring 18 to the work that's going on now out at EPRI. There's a 19 developmental program out there. Such heat treating i 20 Programs are being considered.
21 It honestly seems kind of premature to commit to 22 do that or not do it on the Zimmer plant until we more
/~'3 23 fully understand what the procedure is all about.
J 24 It may, of course, not be required because of 25 the chemical content of our pipe. Anything that is that
'l; cAce 9edeta{ cRepzteu, Onc 444 NORTH CAPITOL. STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 3474 700
l 211 i 1 good must have some drawbacks.
2 DR. ZUDANS: Is this method that GE is in the
') 3 process of developing for measuring the sensitization level 4 applicable in this case or not?
'~'
5 MR. BRINKMAN: Measuring the sensitization . . .
6 CHAIRMAN DENDER: This is the corrosion testing, l
l 7 is that right?
8 MR.,BRINKMAN: We have investigated and come up 9 with the carbon content which, in effect, indicates --
10 DR. ZUDANS: That's all right. Thank you.
11 AR. SMITH: I think there might be one thing we 12 could clarify. The only stainless steel piping of any size 13 we have on the Zimmer plant is the recirc system.
(,) 14 The contro rod drive return line is carbon 15 steel. The core spray lines are carbon steel. And so on.
16 DR. ZUDANS: Okay. So you have selected other 17 materials.
18 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, we, too, are hoping that 19 you are making the problem go away. I think we have see 20 enough of it.
21 Are there other questions from the Subcommittee?
22 l MR. FLYNN: Dr. Bender, that concludes our
/~3 23 presentation.
'V 24 CHAIRMAN BENDER: Thank you, Mr. Flynn.
(} 25 Mr. Peltier, does the Staff have anything cAce-]edeta[ cAeportets, $nc 444 NORTH C APITOL STft EET W AS HINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
212 1 furthur to add to this m sting?
2 MR. PELTIER: No, I believe we're done.
CHAIRMAN BENDER: Very good.
,] 3 4 Well, I want to thank Cincinnati Gas & Electric 5 for getting together all these knowledgeable people for 6 this session. It's been very helpful.
7 As I said, we will do the best we can to get 8 to some point where the full Committee can hear your 9 presentation, as soon as the Staff says it's ready to bring 10 it to the Committee.
11 At the moment we are not controlling the 12 regulatory process. The Staff has not yet reached the 13 position where it says it's ready to present its final
,y
() 14 SER.
15 Dut we thought it was timely to find out the 16 situation. I think it's been very useful to hear this.
17 I'd like to thank the Staff for coming out on a rainy day.
18 MR. FLYNN: Mr. Bender, I would like to raise 19 one question:
20 It is my understanding that the Staff has 21 indicated the SER will come out in final form the first of 22 December, in order to support a January full Committee meeting. I'd like to get that verified or denied.
(l v/
23 I CHAIRMAN BENDER: Well, let me say this:
24 I don't know. The Staff has a way of predicting dates that
~l 25 t/
c0ce 9edera( cReportets, Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHIN GTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 847 3700
213 1 don't come to fruition, so I won't try to predict their 2 results.
) 3 Maybe Mr. Peltier*would like to say.
, .. 4 MR. PELTIER: Well, from where I sit, I think
]
5 I would have to caution that it's going to be a major 6 undertaking to get the report out by December 1. It is 7 our goal, it's our target. But, as you say, sometimes 8 these things don't materialize on schedule.
9 CHAIRMAN BENDER: If the report came out in time, 10 we would try to bring it to the Committee in January, 11 provided that we don't uncover a lot of uncertainties 12 associated with the Mark II containment. We really think 13 that's a major uncertainty, not banause we think the e3
(_) 14 containment is bad but because there are a lot of technolog-15 ical questions that are still being massaged, and sometimes 16 it takes awhile to bring them to fruition.
17 But we'll do the best we can, 18 MR. FLYNN: We'll appreciate it. Thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN BENDER: If there's nothing else, this 20 meeting is adjourned.
21 (Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the meeting was 22 adjourned.)
<~'S 23 J
24
' ')
25 cAce 9edera{ cReporters, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHIN GT ON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
Y PM. G k
)
- STATUS M 'I I 3 CONTAINMENT ISSUES !
O '
SUMMARY
0F CHANGES MADE:
- 1. FILLED INNER CORE OF REACTOR SUPPORT WITH CONCRETE.
7
- 2. REMOVED PLATFORM FROM SUPPRESSION POOL.
-3. ADDITIONAL STEEL ADDED JUST UNDER DRYWELL-FLOOR TO SUPPORT
. PIPING.
(
- 4. SUBSTANTIAL UPGRADING OF STRUCTURAL STEEL IN DRYWELL TO TAKE
[
ABS LOAD COMBINATIONS.
- 5. REROUTED ALL SRV DOWNCOMER PIPING.
- 6. RELOCATED VACUUM BREAKER. VALVES FROM DOWNCOMERS TO'ABOVE .,
DRYWELL FLOOR.
- 7. SUCTION STRAINERS WERE RELOCATED.
- 8. ONE RHR RETURN LINE WAS RE-LOCATED TO IMPROVE MIXING-IN THE O POOL.
- 9. TWO' EQUIPMENT DRAINS WERE' RELOCATED TO AVOID POOL. SWELL. .;
i
- 10. LOWER FLANGES ARE BEING REMOVED FROM ALL 88 DOWNCOMERS..
- 11. ALL PIPING RESTRAINTS IN THE SUPPRESSION POOL WERE RE-DESIGNED.
- 12 . ALL PIPING SNUBBERS- WERE RE-DESIGilED AND RELOCATED, ADDITIONAL U SNUl;iERS WERE ADDED. d
- 13. SEVERAL EQUIPMENT FOUNDATIONS / ANCHOR BOLTS WERE REVISED. d n
.i i
O !
4 3
10 l 1
\ l
fx 2-
~ STATUS MKII ;
(h CONTAlllMENT ISSUES .
O MKil CRITERIA UNDER REVIEW ON ZIMMER A. DRAG LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES !
A. LOCA >
- 1. LOADS ARE BEING EVALUATED ,
- 2. MKIl REVIEWING WITH NRC THIS WEEK i
- s. SRV i
- 1. LOADS ARE BEING EVALUATED
- 2. TEE QUENCHER GE0 METRY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED ,.
, 3. . PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS HELD WITH NRC
- 4. FOLLOW-UP DETAILED REVIEW WITH NRC PLANNED O '
B. SRV PHASING & FREQUENCY A. BOTH WERE CONSIDERED IN DESIGN BEFORE liEC ,
CRITERIA WAS ISSUED B. ZPS ADDRESSED THE INTENT OF NRC CRITERIA
- c. FOLLOW-UP DETAILED REVIEF WITH NRC PLANNED .
O C. A-SYMETRIC LOCA LOAD n A. CONSIDERED EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE l
- s. PLANT EVALUATION UNDERWAY
- c. EXPECT CONTAINMENT CAN ACCOMMODATE ,
O o. FOLLOW-UP DETAILED REVIEW WITH NRC PLANNED O
f& f% J -
SUMMARY
MKil C NTAINMENT ISSUE
,0 -]
ZIMMER UNIT 1 l ZIMMER APPROACH:
- 1. USED BOUNDING LOADS APPROACH {
o
- 2. REPLACED RAMSHEAD WITH QUENCHER (MITIGATES LOADS) ,
- 3. USED RAMSHEAD FOR DESIGN BASIS LOAD (TOOK NO CREDIT FOR LOAD MITIGATERS) 14 . COMBINED DYNAMIC LOADS ABS ..
O 5. USED VERY CONSERVATIVE STRESS ALLOWABLES
- 6. IMPLEMENTED SIGNIFICANT PLANT MODIFICATIONS
- 7. COMMITTED TO IN-PLANT TESTS.(CONFIRM LOADS LESS DESIGN BASIS) ,
CONCLUSION: [
CONTAINMENT ISSUE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED O
P O
7)
wnsm.-.& .
a, www.
4 . . ,
I ..f'x, ~ . . -
L ;n2;&&%- .
~'2' - - ~-
_ , , _ . .. . a L c ..
~.;
n
,' ,s, . {l3i%
$.tisi i D
a CATEGORY I ISSUES s. c (STAFF HAS Posmms)
O l.
'DEWATERINGOFCOWACTEDBACKFILL _ l
- fiye
'EACTOR VESSEL SUPPORTS u@s
. .;y..m
'PRESERVICE AND INSERVICE INSPECTION PROGPM P"-
' EFFECTS OF RECIRCULATION PUMP TRIP IN OVER PRESSURIZATION ANALYSES <
'C,*,.
)
' PROTECTION OF f0 TOR / GENERATOR SETS - REACTOR SCRAM SYSTEM ..- i
'PHYSICALSEPARATIONANDELECTRICALISOLATION rn
{:~ - !
l
~
'FIREPROTECTION O ~~
k
' PLANT AND SUPPDRT K AFFING I
?.
"~
'INDUSTRIALSECURITY r
e 4;;
>o 9
15 (Pt ' .3 i
l l
O M.M h
- t .-
\ ..C' (J h ~%ep "
y a 8 0
_ _ _ _ _ _ - . . . =
. . ? , r -- ,
h$idisbifan:.:u.Ll.M$Nass$didisth02CizlbS4" ^ $= ~ - [ .=- ~^
, , ;um 33
, ' .e,h. .( ,
Q CATEGORY 11 ISSUES F
.(STAFF DOEs NoT HAVE FmAL Posmad I;/
n
- Q s l'
j
' DESIGN FOR POOL DYMMIC LOADS wm ** r ',1
' SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF ECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPENT jpl.jJ
-:w.,
Dn,
' CONSERVATISM IN TRANSIENT ANALYSES y,gd,
. ..e
'LPCI DIVERSION titt. CTS ON ECCS AND LONG TERM COOLING ]hj=
~,
'POOLDYNAMICLOADSANDLDADCOMBINATI0tB y '
' SAFETY RELATED DISPLAY INSTRUtBEATION c 1
- t. .
' ALL OTHER INSTRUBDEATION REQUIRED FOR SAFETY l-i n 'PREOPERATIONAL AND STARRIP TEST PROGRAM )L u
U i i
l
,~
B:
i'
,Y ^
.e.
e
_a !
'h .
['\.
ic
{; ~
O. - ,
% g g!; .
g.;
f . .
- . ,:.. 7, r e. .n w x,
ambar::% n .a* c.2%=3..Qua.e:=az%%. % ,.:.l au.a~;; .
- ..:aw: R; w c q . q k gla ,: : g 2 :.2 w xy;. ~ _ R.y '
, . gy
,a g:9e O ACRS GENERIC C0fCERNS f-i O ACES TASKACTION @
II-1 A-32;37 3.5 h L
II-2 C-10 M %
+
11-3 A-11 MY4,1978 gb u.c x II-u MY 4,1978-PROPOSED C
- ,,e;.
II-5A B-60 4.4.1 dje.i%
II-5B B-73 MY4,1978. H- i II-6A A-9 MY4,1978 II-6B A-35,B-56 MY4,1978 I' II-6C A-30 MY4,1978 II-7 B-22 MY4,1978 [
O 11-8 B-68 MY 4,1978 h MY 4,1978.
r' II-9 0-1 :
e 11-10 LONGRANGE MY 4,1978 !
IIA-1 B-54 M IIA-2 B-68 M II1-3 A-3,4,5 M : !
IIA-4 POLICY MY 4,1978 b ,l IIB-1 A-19 M gh
. n.. . m' IIB-1 B-22 4.2 " .1 -
IIB-3 B-10 M 1 m .n IIB-4.
RESOLVED 5.2 O u C-1 B-8 M ?#t IIC-2 A-29 MY4,1978 $
0 16
' 4V n $
l v
v - - -
e #
p. _4.& y . #',,a ',,, .. p ,, 4 e{ w y U J , ,, . *,* 'hfd s , . ,d 7 ptF#
r,,- +,b- d yJ n
- l _. . )7
_~#'53'
.m_ ?.o#,M ! ' .h. 'J5.,7.N.#. 8MOf - .,1'$
>. c'-
r ./N ".
. _} ' N._2'm[_,i/m "u 2"Y. ' e..- k? ,
a . ~ .~...6..J_D..'/*_."."*,. ._ .t' ',". j '_7.3
-[#',
. _ 1 -
3
.m.
,4 j.
. ._ .m _.- _
.'_.7. 51.sm. 7, ..
4-mge 9hM.':.
M
- v. b.-
ARCS GENERIC CONCERNS (CONT'D) N
~
>'o',- S ACE TASKACTION M -
1IC-3A A-15 MY4,1978 A "W
' IIC-3B B-64 MY 4,1978
.3 IIC-4 A-2 5.2.1 n-WF:
- 1IC-5 A-1 6,3,2 l4$ ..
IIC-6 B-34 12.3 s,w 11C-7 A-6,7 NA i~
' i;.% ,
- IID-1A RESOLVED NA -
m:
IID-1B A-17 MY 4,1978 ;-
"~
II D-2 C-1 MY4,1978 MY 4,1978 b IIE-1 A-40 w
- n. .c , .
c Ig?'.. :'y n(- h{
ee%;
tg W > . .
.,e'f. ' s6.s 4 l3;.Y:
er, dp dis.N)i, j
....e..
se ..p, .
.O
- g
((
n .:r
- ?-
,a i.-';. =
'f . E',
i a
w-y,y-1
,. _y. .
v.
~ ..
MN61u.LtLa# ':L:.1.EiL2=1E52LiOsks%541.azh20YL. =5 . UW-Qlnr
$m . .
O ACRS GENERIC CONERNS ?-
0 2 'T^$xAc" " E
!I-1 A-32,37 3.5 i"' .
A-11 MAY4,1978 NP 11-3. %yr d
11-4 PORPOSEDC MY4,1978 GQN um II-5A B-60 4.4.1 , gg;y II-5B. B-73 MAY4,1978
@p . . .-
II-6A A-9 MAY4,1978 y!
~
Il-6B A-35,B-56 MY 4,1978 ,
w II-6C A-30 MAY 4,1978 11-7 B-22 MY4,1978 "
t 11-8 B-68 MAY4,1978 p O II-9 o-1 MAv4,1978 1 .
I1-10 LONGRANGE MY4,1978 L L., .
IIA-4 POLICY MAY4,1978 F
. IIB-2 B-22 5.2 k p-IIB-4 RESOLVED - 5.2 ,
11C-2 A-29 MY 4,1978 l*
o ..
11C-3A A-15 MAY4,1978 A 3.g IIC-3B B-64 MAY4,1978 nat
=:w :
11C-4 A-2 5.2.1 g IIC-5 A-1 6.3.2 3.M g :. -
- ,unu '
-IIC-6 B-34 32.3- +
O 11n-3B A-17 MAY4,1978 fh!N I1.D-2 C-1 MAY 4,1978 !If
'O IIE A-40 MAY4,1978
}$W w ;n:*/ i
, .y. '
9 :
$/JlY~ l 1
STATION ADMINISTRATION . RECORDS. MANAGEMENT ,
. CHEMICAL / RAD 10 CHEMICAL RELIABILITY DESIGN AND MODIFICATIONS REPORTS MANAGEMENT DOCUMENT CONTROL- SECURITY.
EQUIPMENT CONTROL SPECIAL PROCESSES
~~
EMERGENCY PLAN TRAINING SPECIAL TESTS AND EXPERIMENTS. ;s FIRE' PROTECTION H USEKEEPING & CLEANLINESS CONTROL 0
t
. INSTRUMENT MAINTENANCE-MEASURING AND TEST EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION MECHANICAL AND^ ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE .
)
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING OPERATIONS i PROCUREMENT CONTROL ,
g QUALITY ASSURANCE RADWASTE OPERATIONS g- .
V RADIATION PROTECT 10N'
.l
b$ff O
O
-A. INITIAL PLANT STAFF TRAINING PROGRAM i B. REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM O
C. REPLACEMENT TRAINING PROGRAM O
O P
A. INITIAL PLANT STAFF TRAINING PROGRAM f
1, OPERATIONS GROUP A, INITIAL COLD LICENSE TRAINING PHASES I THRU VI a s, i
( NONLICENSED OPERATOR TRAINING
-2, 'SUPERV1SORY STAFF l
i A. INTRODUCTION TO NUCLEAR POWER
- s. ACCELERATED NUCLEAR POWER PREPARATORY TRAINING
- c. STATION NUCLEAR ENGINEERING .
D. BWR CHEMISTRY E. BWR MAINTENANCE. !
F. NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTATION u
e, PROCESS INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL :
H. BWR OPERATING FUNDAMENTALS .
I, OBSERVATION AND TRAINING AT OPERATING FACILITIES O 3. PLANT TECHNICIANS ,
A. ZIMMER ORIENTATION
- s. NUCLEAR FUNDAMENTALS
- c. RADIATION PROTECTION D, SPECIFIC COURSES
- 1. - ELECTRONIC FUNDAMENTALS II, - NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTATION III. - DIGITAL LAB ~
Iv, - SYSTEMS TRAINING v - GENERAL' MAINTENANCE (CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS, VALVE LAPP NG & PACKING, RIGGING & LIFTING, ETC.)
O E. PARTICIPATION IN PREOP & STARTUP TESTING: LAB & SHOP i SET-UP; ON-THE-JOB IN THEIR SPECIALTY, 1 O l l
l
.. ~ _ . - .
B. REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM .
O 1. LICENSED (R0 OR SRO) PERS0tlNEL .
A. PRE-PLANNED LECTURES O 1.- THEORY;. PRINCIPALS OF OPERATION II.- GENERAL AND SPECIFIC OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS III.- INSTRUMENTS & CONTROLS Iv - PROTECTION SYSTEMS v.- ESF v1;- PROCEDURES vil,- RADIATION CONTROL AND SAFETY v111.- TECH, SPECS H Ix,- QUALITY s, REACTIVITY MANIPULATIONS O i, -REACTOR STARTUP & SHUTDOWN II. -CR SEQUENCE CHANGES III. -SD MARGIN CHECKS Iv, -CR SCRAM TIMING v -REFUELING
- c. APPARATUS OPERATION D. PLANT CHANGES (DESIGN, PROCEDURES, T,S., ETC,)
E, . PROCEDURE REVIEW (ABNORMAL & EMERGENCY)
O
- o
. .- .- . . -. . _ - _ - - . -. 1
4 ,-
O.w O U~
wu il llMAtt fl CG8E ELECTRIC CGG E S I A IlON PfiODUC TION SUf'E RIN T E ND- CORPOll AT E
, ENT M AN AGE MENT MAtl AGE ME NT
. . ON -I A#T Y CENTNAt (Only if supt is nce LMEllGENCY SillF 1 ALARM STAIK)N PUllLIC
,-h( ) DUTY Of FICER s SUPE RVISOtt ^PERATOR INfUtM ATION inunnhetely ovellefile) (E DOI NEWS MEDIA
- s
- l l \4 I L As directed by AMOULANCE USERDA IISNRC REGION AND/OR IIRE RADIOt DGICAL M COMPLIANCE i station superin-lendent or EDO. DEPAlti MLNT S ASSISTANCE OFFICE Cl E flMONT 01110 DISASTCR GilO COut! T Y,OlllO SE RVICE S ENVIRONMENT-SiltillFF AGENCY Al PROTECTION K ENCY CAMPUEtt / utuiucar 0411G RIVER 1
PENtt E TON m loa or VALLEY SANI-COUN T Y, KY g"dg#*$((* T ATION pot.lC E st avicg COMMISSION l OC Al. MEDICAL ME DIC AL CONSULTANTS ASSIST AN CE 8 GEN'L IIOSf!
-r NEW RfCtIMOND US COAST SC1100l. D13T. GUARD PORT (MOSCOW Of CINCINNATI SCIIOOL) 01110 NAllONAl. MUNICIPAL 2
GUAllD (FOR WATER WORKS AllE RN AI E E m e r .CEN T ER ONCINNATI,Olll0 MENTON CO, KY.
- E MCRGENCY l NE WPOR T. KY CALL LOST-STAilON
, l'E RSON NL t.
t r4EVJ RICllMOND IVLICE a FIRE DISPAICilEfl i
4 k&b 1
CL
[ SLIDE fl.
ZIMMER UNIT 1 g GENERAL INFORMATION
[
O
- 1. LOCATION: I, b7 A. 24 MILES SOUTHEAST OF CINCINNATI, OHIO -
B. 0.5 MILES NORTH OF MOSCOW, OHIO j
C. WASHINGTON' TOWNSHIP, CLERMONT COUNTY ;
D. 631.7 ACRE SITE D!
?
- 2. UNDIVIDED JOINT OWNERSHIP i
A. THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY B. THE DAYTON POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY !
C. COLUMBUS AND SOUTHERN OHIO ELECTRIC COMPANY ,
Q 3. PLANT CAPACITY / MAJOR EQUIPMENT A. 2436 MWT/839 MWE GROSS B. GE BWR5 BOILING WATER REACTOR C. WESTINGHOUSE 4 FLOW C0iiDENSING TURBINE D. R.C. NATURAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER 'I
- 4. SCHEDULE A. PSAR SUBMITTED APRIL, 1970 B. E.R. SUBMITTED JANUARY, 1971 j C. AEC ENVIRON. STATEMENT SEPTEMBER, 1972 !
D. CONST. PERMIT ISSUED OCTOBER,.1972 !
O' E. FSAR SUBMITTED MAY, 1975 F. FUEL LOADING JUNE, 1979 '1 O G. . COMMERCIAL OPERATION JANUARY, 1980
. _ . . _ _ tj
u= ~. - . . ...-..~..-.__-._._..-_.;-_.. .
.. t 8
SLIDE #2-ZIMMER UNIT 1 O
CONTAINMENT FEATURES .
a v
c l
- 1. PRIMARY CONTAINMENT ;
1 A, l MKII ARRANGEMENT o
A, OVER & UNDER ARRANGEMENT B. WATER POOL FOR STEAM SUPPRESSION
- c. STEEL LINED PRE-STRESSED CONCRETE l
B. DESIGN PRESSURES & TEMPERATURES A. . -INTERNAL PRESSURE 45 PSIG :
B. EXTERNA'L PRESSURE 2 PSIG J
- c. FLOOR PRESS, DIFF. 25 PSI DOWNWARD l
l 9 PSI UPWARD O D. TEMPERATURE 275 F WETWELL 340 F DRYWELL
{
l lo
, . v. l 1
i
/
-l l>
}
~-*
- A m ~'
f ,
l/
f
,r.__.
v 7
I k-- '
b,.; .;; .
_ _ . - . . t .: _ _ . . _ . _ h j h1 lf g i I S -- -
l
!n
===v -
l 1
ll l W
.._u...._--.-
t L >
.P i p i ,-gj '
EL. 62 7 '-9" ._ -
- .y = :. 5 --- -;f, q
COMB. GAS CONT.
e-
~ ._
. .) .A ;f - -- - - - ~
- - - -~~ ~ ~~~
HYDROGEN' ~
s'O 2
M. ;.. ' RECOMBINER F- L8 i > ,
...' .p; ......,t-
., ~
l 74,' - "y
/k ;
-EL 593'~6" ~
~
~,'
~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ _
g 5 'fM.,
-l" ^
STANDBY GAS j TREATMENT
- ., we j 'm ..
- c. - E Q U IP. ~
n - .
/ ;,m .....,. u..) -
^
RECIRC. PUMP -
s
/
. _ _ . _ . . . . - - . ~ ~
i SRY / i VAC BREAKERS v
} 3l' . " U'/ .. . ,
g
~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,.e j 8
._3 f.._2
~
\' I lepl g
[^8' HEAT PRIMARY EXCHANGER .
CONT '
I
__ h,i ()h j ,- P -EL. 525'-7"
~ ~~
i h [ .II f $b6 VIN 6 MAR
~
i O - - -
I7 i ii
- l
^
f il. " dp p,
L M.. .. !
kL wATea 'eveL
}- EL. 496'-10"
]...<
[
._.._.__ ________ .c 0
-c e -
fsh; I -)
, , r.
VV* w; U N '
'TF**9_ -_ . RHR a
. nj.
,, \ . . :.g,.-~
. - \ .? v:<vr ,, 7 1 PUMP .
- r. .,
g MAIN STEAM 3 474'-10" r- PRIMARY i SRV DISCHARGE TENDON ACCESS CONTAINMENT DEVICE b .. .
PURGE SYSTEM TUNNEL 0 SUPPRESSION
- - . CHAMBER SUPPORT COLUMN v ,
i R !
> ' CONTAINMENT CROSS SECTION b
i o]
WM. H. ZIMMER STATION h
( . .. ,
p 1 . -
,I .
3hIS,b1 : $* ?)
2f '
l;1ii' ! :lIlI 1li.
J
. t ,
- s .
S AT "E R -
P*'R=wl CN a r- u-YMI 8
DAQ E
TU ca e re E c gs 2 s
yo u 9s-i N
6 u ER-
'9 NEE c'cagt o S u -
O AR
L a u T AN T _
E o NN m OU .
e
- a. L i.
D T O N
,a
=I u g E s
J'Z:
. T
- -d-i
\
s r O t.
e..n y
t , l' ,
(\ .j x .
_ f ~,- \
v T* - ,_ .
i~ t 7_ Ie '. ; ;
a e
~; p ,, U- r u .
.iM i . g.,~ ,cP. s ,
8 t O'
_ - E G
= '
go. 9 R .
AE cI2 - j' '~ ~ .f i/,:J
/
s , .
\ CIVStE HC .
,/ OD i/mA prqT lJ O -
g V .
y R
S _
_~ '
b-R S
. .g p : :-AM'.
l 4j>\jR YES T"b NR .
N' r
o J[qF4 l\ '
T ! . t. M NSY .
N . Mtt ~
OE a - A, m* .
CNN E Et u a a O SGO AOM *R e r' PNNC .
CHO CC BYE _
x s u u
r a .
MHR ..
c c e c O R C T a -
S
_ n c _
R o _ -
-[,j4,, d\
- T y -
C .l T
I
.\HR E
T A
W N .
n'
] .K, , r.f. l i.
D E
E .
N I
O T
O%
3 ,
i._
MC m P H
O I
A T
_ x_
l T S
.- l
.[
j R n C E R
.. c n
,l1 k .
,lL S E b
,c g; _
- g. :7l a
, S M S M G ._ lt .- ,.
O Z I
- m.W ,f
,pI J_ L 7J R .
C H R
1 .
Nl cv M W ,
s u .
- y
,. S
~
<A ,NE
}.-. _ t R
O T
A RS mO R
\ v A
e R
E T
,B
,R
,T C
U .
ET g A .A -
SA E
. E H EH .
PE UR T u -
S t
o M _ .w -
v!:.
v_ .:-
O -
3-
] -
M
[
- .r 1
g
- o. s.
n t
c r_
A
. R c I . */
. ea*.
,,g . .
.1
-s _ . _ .e- . -_.
m .-_.-e . - . . - - ...;--- , . .,g- -- 1 8 8 a, #8 to # *# 8 f *S , .
9 !.# . 8 E g er .y;,s, n. y)f se . ,M.
~
7" . ,,.
e %.
4 s, ..
r,:
~ '. , [L .
- n. .Y,,',[
. . . .~
e
,~
<~.... .
Q
,( ,
\)
<~m N
( \
- O 1
1
- 1
. m W l
,i >
c
' [1- ,
g 5
1 I i .
. E m---
g ni j
,. i~
t l 4 yl l z
[i g
_ s , --
, 52 1
h,[ l y
_9 1 y; 9_
n _ -**
O s
! i d
e
!I c !
8 13s
$ i -
p c=
.s -
D t 1 Ed-w3I- -
i t
I e Lu - .. y=Ll eG r
N I i .i a BR .,E '
a B55 a 5 0 , ft*
fgg .
l\
l E 3.
, l
?. ,' . l. .,
g f p$
_ p - -.
- . . [] El
- s .- - .
m, g- a/
s l y.-- .
. v .f . -
i I
/-
s s -. l t-LW' j i
.t . . N^ ;d I i ,
e, !
$ gmL ___.
- .yr..a, L_ _]" i 8 m _i . r- a +. - @ d q==
1- est 11 g W a
)
, V.: t ...s.......................l d,J \
{ .
M
" I '
.M{["' t -jha- I""l n On E E I l !
\
~
hl's,i-
\ ,!!j .,
b- 1_ ~~~ ~ T- h r <<7;-- c ,o_
.&: t .
} IS
. J r <
c l:
9a .'
. D,/ A R, s, 1 %,. E; l2 r
"!Eds.
t ,
tg r h tup u. r l I, .
b hY
'.. .hh ,g_ hh k l.
,, s .
w+.
hW. .;z'.0. .
. .c
.C' ,
3,
.f ,.}~ ' ;.
- _'; ?l
. w.y e a. . . ' ..
.a
.wn.
s, u. . j
.r.. . .
g.
.%u. < ;., . r . ..' ,.e+.>h,(h .],,t e, yy . ',
g p 3 -
h[t,,h,I/S,, .', <
. , 7,) *' ., ,;, ;,
j D*3?N ' Kf4G.gR$1Myyj"ygt ' yeg wg&%gggai@%gge'"
>i x? e{ l eJtt_<...,- w e m. . . a _. nL ,m....,. n 8 5a ~m _r c . i sa
O O O OO #m '
FESIMitT{
vit t PPf'3 ttfffT fifC. '"t 9%
EtJ C.FW.
I I I Lc -- J _I MT R = "ATI Mht:A*Tp fWSEG R I
- l b* b g ggc, g pryyn ,
CFN . FNG.
Cff*M. MET-
,, y Ctm P. E WV. RIT. p ',
, ,- . J .J I I I I I I l l ST 4.St.tT . PPfuttrab PRItacgtaL g .p. CWIFF I * '
PFINCir AL PPf ftCIP AL rFS-1 (%s3 $7MICT*
- f44ELEAR possit DPAFTsvft y n '*
LIC.E.MGR. tyt. f.ieCR .
FfeCR. 3 tsCp. SIWa
_ ,, g pg,,.
_..s e
1 1 I I I l '
I sra.ri.rc- "sy"sTrn nareR
,,,,,,- "r"ir'"C.
I steTn . emr-
, , - rwn.
7 mr. ure.
I 1/
5"' tw.ruen. sTarr sTarica m Tien smnw smuso, i,mme amarTine semma U"
- f MGINfTR RHCittFER S PEC'9DS . FMCINFF R
- ~
- g. g f. t.tsGp. OR SfTC. TF199. {UAL ITT F tilCtfE FR ENG#. $t F.C. t% cit *f.TR STPtKT. f4ECR. IT CW. PEP 300. Ef.1'C.
[
3Ct tfrf f 5T LErliiD
- 00iTUlitCAT10H IDIE: 00ilSULIAfti AtlD DUISIDE TLOttilCAL SERVICES P!i.11. ZifRR fiURLAR l'O'!ER stall 0ii UNII 1 i
FESmilSIBill1Y (1AY BE RETAlitLD BY Tile ABOVE SECil0flS AS FIML StEETY AilALYSIS RFI' ORT I
' RLOUIRLD. '
flW RE 13.1-1 CGEE ORCAllZAll0.tAL OIART
o Q !
.O
'W M. H. ZIMMER N U C L E A R' P O W E R' STATION S C H E'O U L E ANALYSIS ;
NOVEMBER 7, 1 978 I (D . .
l l
l 1
l O
A.V.C.
O'.- j i
O-l 1
......-_..,._.....----..-.............--,-,-..<,._.,--..~,,.....<.~,,--c-,.
...a,,_., ,,,r........,, -m-'
TY;MT;7M AVC
' CHANGES.~SINCE LAST' REVIEW
.l . REACTOR INTERNALS - Installation of.the reactor' internals started j
.O iest week, when it wes dec4ded to eefer the shroud head se4s 4c pin work.to a later date. !
-h' t2 : PREOPERATIONAL TESTING SCHEDULE .' A review was conducted 1ast week by E.P.D. and G.E.D. , during which :several major' logic and. duration l
l
' changes were made. These changes have been incorporated.into the Project Schedule.
- 3. SUPPRESSION POOL - K.E.I. has. prepared a detail schedule covering remaining work in the suppression pool, . including replacement of the safety relief valve (SRV): piping and installation of quenchers. :
This schedule allows for a " window" during the month 'of December,'
when the suppression pool is to be made available for functional .
1 testing of the ECC~ Systems.:
- 4. DRYWELL STRUCTURAL STEEL ' K.E.I. has recently issued a schedule covering rework of the drywell' structural . steel'and must analyze ;
physical interference problems to determine if preoperational testing will be affected. Estimated manhours for the rework.has .
grown from 14,000, in September, to..the current 30,000 manhours.
Craft manpower requirements to perform.this work will peak this month,'at approximately 50 men and; completion is not expected .
until March,1979.
O s. ELECTRICAL CABLE TESTtNG Electrical cable testins was 39% complete,
. as of 10-27-78. Testing has averaged 1.15% weekly, over the. last ,
approx. 16 weeks. This.is below theLnecessary-sustained rate of l 2.76% (weekly), that must be maintained in order to complete by l April 1,1979. An additional Multi-Amp engineer will be on site this I week, to handle determination requests, and.it is expected that this. ,
will be.an aid in expediting cable testing. j ;
- 6. PRIMARY CONTAINMENT TESTING - Currently waiting for receipt of j
" graph-oil" packing to begin testing of the first ten (10)
Primary Containment (PC) isolation valves. All testing is required .;
to be complete to support the integrated leak rate test (I.L.R.T.) 1
-1 1
O ,
j LO ,
_____.._._.,~..______.._..-._.;..,.,---.._. ..._.m . .. . - . _ - . ~ _ . . - . _ .
O O WM.
O H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION OO '
UNIT 1
_ SCHEDULE ANALYSIS i
PROJECT SCHEDULE REVISED PROJECT MILESTONE DATE SCHEDULE DATE CURRENT STATUS NSSS FLUSH COMPLETE COMPLETED N/A N/A R.P.V. HYDRO COMPLETED N/A ~ N/A SECONDARY CONTAINMENT TEST 3-09-79 3-05-79 15 DAYS LATE
-(COMPLETE)
INTEGRATED LEAK RATE TEST (I.L.R.T.) 3-22-79 3-05 45 DAYS LATE t
REACTOR INTERNALS COMPLETE 5-14-79 5-09-79 45 DAYS LATE FEEDWATER (FW-1) PRE 0P COMPLETE 6-14-79 6-14-79 30 DAYS LATE LIQUID RADWASTE SYS. (LR-1)
PREOP COMPLETE 6-14-79 6-14-79 40 DAYS LATE VITAL BUSES (AP-5) PREOP COMPLETE 5-16-79 5-18-79 6 DAYS LATE FUEL LOAD 6-15-79 6-15-79 49 DAYS LATE COMMERCIAL OPERATION N/A N/A N/A i
tJ 11-07-78
- vJ AVC
1979 11/ 7/ 7 8 AN.C.
Are asu , mas DESCRIPTION
"" "J O
' * """SS"""
HIGH PRESSURE CORE S
"=o - > ' -
q O RESID. HEAT REMOVAL vm1,% .1 - nl v
I Rx. CORE ISOLATION CO
- I I ,
SUPPRESSION PdOL !
1 I
1 Ee rLETE t.P.V. INTERNALS !
T REACTOR INTERNAL somE se &
ta m R.P.v. trTEE ) PEEL CONTROL ROD DRIVE !!mrta v"H M s s>' 5 TEST & l I
VIBRATION l I '
I 1 l
' RECIRC.
- 5) sTsnx mr TEST
- ( I REACTOR RECIRCUL w.s m Q -
(-6) _
e Op g LA-1 M E00 j ,
CONTMT. PENET. TEST v1 l 1 !
l WY-1
- n ,/
lp VI v g) i :
' CONTROL ROD DRIVES (RD-1 & RD-31 n)I v
)
. $ nut 2ERS A v
$YSTEM v
RS.1 MtEDP
_i])l i i
e/ES/DY PREOPS HD/ES/DV SYSTEMS O FEEDWATER n
v W-1 PREOP
'~~ Jl I ^ CONTMT. COMB. GAS Ci IG-1 PREOP @i 3 $HIFT WORK QPERAT10it5 FLOAT: * ' 'negative '" NN 33 7.,, ' g a u WEEx MILE 3M[ CNERISE T FIRTH >; \ -- _ _ _ __ -'ywe.,,, , , _ _