ML20235B040
| ML20235B040 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1979 |
| From: | Duraiswamy S Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234A777 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-40 NUDOCS 8707080614 | |
| Download: ML20235B040 (25) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- f / *m
(
.f
,"1 'f
....,1.-
i
\\
1 c:xp..
March 26,1979 kgfh-ACRS Members CERTIFIED MINUTES OF THE ACRS WM. H. ZIMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, FEBRUARY $7,1979, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Attached is a copy of the certified minutes of the subject meeting.
l The Working Copy of these minutes, which were issued March 3,1979, should be destroyed.
Sam Duraiswamy Site Analyst
{ !
Attachment:
j !
Minutes of Wm. H. Zininer Nuclear Power
!j Station, Unit 1 Meeting of February 27, i
i 1979
\\
j cc: ACRS Technical Staff
'a j
f\\J l
l s.
!j$
'l t
pe{*],ea e *
- q*
I L(!
G..
..A l
1 8707080614 870610 i
/Mst7g OFFICE >
l sunwau s k D'ATt h NRC FORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 W u. s. novenwurut ensurine cFFacs, t eye - ees.es4
t%
%~~'WhFFICIAL USE ONLY I(
g D4TE ISSUED:
3/10/79
' " ' //#fd MINUTES OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 WASHINGTON, DC FEBRUARY 27, 1979
%e ACRS Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Subcommittee held a meeting on February 27,1979, at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Notice of this meeting was published on Tuesday, January 2,1979, in the Federal Register, Volume 44, Number 1, and Friday, February 9,1979, Volume 44, Number 29; a copy is included as Attachment A.
A tentative presentation schedule for the meeting is included as Attachment B.
A list of meeting attendees is included as Attachment C, and a list of background documents submitted to the Subcommittee and its consultants is included as Attachment D.
Dr. Richard Savio was the Designated Federal Employee for the meeting.
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN Mr. Bender, the Subcommittee Chairman, convened the meeting at 10:00 a.m.,
introduced the other Subcommittee member and the consultants, and reviewed -
briefly the schedule for the meeting. He noted that the purpose of this meeting was to continue the review of the application of the Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company (03&E) for a license to operate the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.
%e Subcommittee had received neither written comments nor requests for time to make oral statements from members of the public.
)
EXECUTIVE SESSION A brief executive session was held.
Mr. Bender solicited comments from the Subcommittee and its consultants.
I Indicatire that the results of the recent Two Loop Test Apparatus (TLTA) tests conducted by the General Electric (GE) showed different pressure variations than the predicted ones, Dr. Plesset asked about the NRC Staff's opinion on the results of these tests. He also indicated that he would like to know the relevance of these results to the Zimmer plant.
)
1 0FFICIAL USE ONLY
__________-___________-_--___m
3N OFFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 Dr. Catton provided some brief comments on the Applicant's written response to.some of the questions raised during the Subcommittee meeting on November 17, 1978. Some of the questions and the Applicant's written responses to those are included as Attachment E.
With regard to the response to his question on the fuel bundle lift potential, Dr. Catton commented that the arguments given (in one of the GE documents on this issue) as to why it is conservative to neglect the control rod friction in the analysis are not convincing. He called GE and discussed this issue and they promised to provide additional detailed infor-mation in the near future.
In relation to the heat transfer coefficients used in the analysis of the drywell concrete temperature, Dr. Catton commented that these heat transfer coefficients were taken from McAdams' book on " Heat Transmission",
and they are not the latest.
As an overall response to the Applicant's written response, Dr. Catton commented that although he still has some concerns in sorbe areas, he feels that progress is being made towards resolution.
Dr. Zudans indicated that he would like to hear about the basis used for calculating the energy absorption capability of the pipe whip restraints.
PRESENTATION BY THE NRC STAFF Introduction - Mr. Peltier Mr. Peltier reviewed the changes made to the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) subsequent to the Subcommittee meeting on November 17, 1978 (Attachment F, Page 1).
Mr. Peltier noted that the issues identified in the SER have been categorized into three different groups:
0FFICIAL USE ONLY
1 3Q
.0F I IF C AL USE ONLY l
Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 l
l Outstanding Issues - Includes those issues on which the NRC Staff l
has not completed their review so as to establish a final position.
j i
i confirmatory Items - Includes those items on which the review has been completed and the NRC Staff has established some psitions.
he Applicant will implement these positions prior to the operating license issuance. We NRC Staff is in the process of confirming the implementation of these positions.
Items of Disagreement - Includes those items on which there are some disagreements between the NRC Staff and the Applicant.
Mr. Peltier also indicated that, as a step toward improving the legal sufficiency of the SER, it has been modified in several areas (Attachment G) so as to outline clearly the bases for NRC Staff's conclusions reached on certain issues.
Outstanding Issues - Mr. Peltier Mr. Peltier noted that the SER identifies two outstanding issues:
(1) Mark II acceptance criteria, and (2) Emergency Core Cooling. However, since the issuance of the SER, the emergency core cooling issue has been considered re-solved. He discussed briefly the status of these two items:
Mark II acceptance criteria - The NRC Staff has reviewed the generic i
i aspects of the Mark II containment system ard has reparted its find-ings in NUREG-0487," Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria," dated October 1978. %e NRC Staff was given to understand that the Applicant intends to take exception to two of the generic acceptance criteria. W e informa-tion provided by the Applicant to identify the extent to which he is committed to adopt the generic criteria is being reviewed by the NRC Staff. Upon completion of the review of all the items pertinent to Mark II acceptance criteria, the NRC Staff will include its find-ings in a Supplement to the SER (SSER).
0FFICIAL USE ONLY
r.
1, M OFFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 Emergnecy Core Cooling, - Subsequent to the Subcommittee meeting on November 17, 1978, the NRC Staff has reviewed the results of the TLTA tests. W e NRC Staff believes that sufficient margin exists in the present Zimmer emergency core cooling system calculations to ensure the adequacy of this system. W ey also believe that the present emergency core cooling system evalua-tion model is in accordance with the requirements of Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50.
However, if further analysis of the TLTA test results indicate that the present model is inadequate, GE will be required to revise the model accordingly so as to accommodate the new findings.
Load Combination Criterion on Zimmer - Mr. Bosnak Mr. Bosnak noted that the Zimmer plant has evaluated all the loads, both in the balance of plant system side and the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) side, by using the absolute sum method; there were only a few situations where the Zimmer plant did not meet the absolute sum criteria, and appropriate measures are being taken to resolve these situations. % e NRC Staff believes that the i
load combination criterion for the Zimmer Plant is resolved.
Mark II Lead Plant Criterion on Zimmer - Mr. C. Anderson Mr. Anderson reviewed briefly the Mark II Lead Plant Load Acceptance Criterion, indicating that the NRC Staff's findings on this issue are delineated in NUREG -0487.
He noted that 39 various load phenomena associated with i
pool dynamics were identified. After discussions with the Mark II Ckners
{
Group,14 load phenomena prepared by GE were found acceptable; 5 were identi-
)
fled for specific plant review, and in 20 areas the NRC Staff developed criteria where they believed that the Mark II owners Criteria were inadequate.
)
l In relation to Zimmer, Mr. Anderson noted that among the 20 areas for which the NRC Staff has developed some specific criteria, Mark II owners Group j
has adopted 8; another 6 areas have been resolved recently (Attachment H, Page 2); and 6 more areas are being resolved (Attachment H, Page 3).
)
1 l
0FFICIAL USE ONLY l
l l
.5 20 OFFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 Mr. Anderson discussed briefly the issues that are being resolved. He noted that among the 6 issues that are being resolved, the most attention is given to two items: (1) Quencher air clearing loads; and, (2) LCCA Jet submerged drag loads.
In relation to the quencher air clearing loads issue, Mr. Anderson noted that the NRC Stc2f's criterion includes the magnitude of the ramshead loads; it also assumes th t all of the bubbles released are in phase and at the same frequency (within a range from 4 to 11 hertz).
However, the Mark II owners Group feels that this criterion is unrealistically conservative. 'Ihey have complied with the requirements of using the magnitude of ramshead loads; however, they have not complied with the requirement that all the bubbles be considered to be in phase and at the same frequercy.
They have analyzed several cases for different valve settings and actuat.!on sequences by using the magnitude of the ramshead loads, and also taking credit for the pipe lengths. They have also analyzed one case by assuming that the bubbles released are in phase and at the same frequency; however, in this case, instead of using the ramshead loads they used IMU quencher t
type loads, the magnitude of which is less than the ramshead loads.
Mr. Anderson indicated that the analyses done for different valve settings by using ramshead loads and assuming different bubble frequencies gave higher containment response than the analysis which was done by using quencher type loads and assuming bubbles in phase and at the same frequency.
In response to a question from Dr. Plesset regarding a comparison between ramshead loads and quencher type loads, Mr. Anderson noted that the magni-tude of ramshead load will be about a factor of 4 higher than that of a quencher type load.
Mr. Anderson indicated that the NRC Staff has asked Zimmer and the Mark II Owners Group to document the methodology used in the analyses 0FFICIAL USE ONLY
1 J%,
OFFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 and all the other information pertinent to this issue. We NRC Staff will compare this with the KWU test data which they expect to get within two weeks, to determine the appropriateness of the methodology which uses quencher type loads. He also rx>ted that Zimmer has committed to do some in-plant tests on this issue. He believes that this issue will be resolved in the near future.
With regard to the issue on LOCA jet submerged drag loads, Mr. Anderson noted that the Mark II Owners Group has proposed a new " Ring Vortex Model" which uses a different assumption than the model proposed by the NRC Staff. We NRC Staff's model assumes that the water blown out of the downcomer will be going out as a bullet (jet); hcwver, the ring vortex model assumes that the water from the downcomer will deform into a mushroom shape upon entrance into the pool. We Mark II Cuners Group believes that a substantial fraction of the kinetic energy of the jet is converted into a vortex ring. We Mark II Owners Group has l
recently shown some films of scaled tests to the NRC Staff to explain i
this model, e
In response to a question from Mr. Bender as to why the Mark II Cuners Group prefers to use the " ring vortex model" instead of the " bullet (jet) type model", Mr. Anderson noted that the Mark II Cuners Group believes that in a bullet type model the loads may be concentrated in a specific area which may affect some of the pipes and equipnent that may be directly below the downcomers; this may not be the case in the ring vortex model where the loads may be distributed over a larger area.
Dr. Catton commented that he is not convinced that a vortex will be formed at such an early stage.
Mr. Anderson noted that the film he had seen shows the formation of vortex at an early stage.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
f JQ l
0FFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 The Subcommittee indicated that it would like to see the film prior to the ACRS full Committee Meeting preferably on March 7,1979, and also like to get the description of the ring vortex model as soon as possible.
The NRC Staff and the Applicant indicated that they would provide the film and the description of the model prior to the 227th ACRS full Committee meeting.
Mr. Anderson indicated that the ring vortex model is being reviewed by the NRC Staff and they expect to reach some conclusion in March 1979.
In relation to the issues on LOCA/SRV (Safety Relief Valve) Air Bubble Drag load, Mr. Anderson noted that subject to the documentation of the re-ferences used by the Mark II Owners Group, the NRC Staff will consider, these issues resolved in the near future.
Mr. Anderson reviewed briefly some of the proposed tests associated with the pool dynamic load confirmatory program (Attachment H, Page 4). He noted that the NRC Staff plans to discuss the detailed test plans with the Applicant within the next two weeks.
With regard to the issues on the pool dynamic loads, Mr. Anderson provided the following conclusions:
1.
We NRC Staff believes that Zimmer has adopted a large
)
majority of NRC Criteria.
2.
%e NRC Staff does not anticipate any probles in resolving the few remaining open items.
3.
The resolution of the remaining open items will be j
included in a SSER in March 1979.
l i
I OFFICIAL USE ONLY i
p V6 0FFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 4.
Updated information on the Mark II generic acceptance criteria will be included in a supplement to NUREG-0487 in April 1979.
5.
Ee NRC Staff believes that the confirmatory test program and Zimmer in-plant test program will pro-vide sufficient information to confirm the adequacy of the lead plant load acceptance criteria.
Status of the Evaluation of Reactor Cavity Support Analysis for Zimmer -
Mr. Kudrick Mr. Kudrick noted that the NRC Staff had evaluated the reactor cavity support analysis for Zimmer by using the existing one-dimensional code.
Recently they have received some information on the Best Estimate Analysis Containment (BEACON) code which is a two-dimensional code.
They have compared the preliminary results of the BEACON code with the results of the existing one-dimensional code, and they have observed significant difference; BEACON code results werc approximately 50 percent of those computed by the one-dimensional code. They do not know the exact reason for this difference. Ibwever, they believe that there is no evidence that the results of the BEACON code will jeopardize the results of the one-dimensional code.
In response to a comment from Dr. Catton that he is not convinced that BEACON code will be the solution for the problems in this area, Mr. Kudrick noted that BEACON code represents advanced technology. Eey have an on-going program to compare the various existing test results. tey realize that additional work is necessary to define the problem more clearly; however, they believe that based on the existing data they can make Ifeensing decisions.
In response to a question from Dr. Catton, Mr. Kudrick noted that Ios Alamos Laboratory will issue a status report on the comparison of the various test results in the near future, and that information would be made available to the Subcommittee.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
$ De 9
0FFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 In response to an earlier question asked by Dr. Plesset regarding the relevance of the recent TLTA test results to the Zimmer plant, Mr. Hodges noted that the existing ECCS model for the Zimmer plant meets the general requirements of Appendix K.
However, the NRC Staff has asked General Electric to compare the existing ECCS model with the TLTA test data; should there be any significant discrepancy that needs to be considered, General Electric will be required to make the appropriate changes in their ECCS model.
Items of Disagreement - Dewatering of Compacted Backfill - Mr. Peltier Mr. Peltier noted that there are some disagreements between the NRC Staff and the Applicant on this issue. We NRC Staff requires that the water level in the encapsulated backfill shall be maintained at or below 457 feet above mean sea level measured at the backfill dewatering well. How-ever, the Applicant has not agreed with the NRC Staff on the maximum water level that should be permitted. He believes that the construction permit stage commitment specified 480 feet above mean sea level and that 480 feet level will provide adequate protection against pore pressure in the com-pacted backfill. Re information provided by the Applicitnt to substantiate i
his_ position is being reviewed by the NRC Staff and its consultants, and a resolution is expected in the near future.
Mr. Bender asked the Applicant to comment on the main reasons for the disagreements on this issue during his (Applicant) presentation so as to enable the Subcommittee to have a clear perspective of the issue.
Confirmatory Items - Mr. Peltier Mr. Peltier reviewed briefly the confirmatory items (Attachment F, Page 3).
He noted that the NRC Staff has completed its review on these items and has established some psitions. The Applicant is required to implement these psitions prior to the issuance of the operating license. Se dis-cussions pertinent to some of the confirmatory items are as follows:
1 0FFICIAL USE ONLY
3 %
s OFFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 Inservice Inspection Mr. Bender asked whether the requirements of the inservice inspection program for the Mark II containment are more difficult than those for the Mark I or Mark III containments.
Mr. Herman responded that the Mark II containment inservice inspection requirements are better than those for the Mark I because the equipnent is more accessible.
Recirculation Pump Trip Effects Mr. Wagner noted that the Applicant did rot include the effects of recirculation pump trip in the overpressuriza-tion analysis. However, as requested by the NRC Staff, the Applicant has submitted a revised analysis to the NRC Staff, and that is being reviewed.
In response to a question from Dr. Catton, Mr. Peltier noted that the Zimmer Plant does not have automatic boron injection i
system.
Mr. Tedesco indicated that the requirement of the automatic boron injection system for the Zimmer Plant will be decided clong with the generic resolution of the Anticipated Transients Without Scram (A7WS) issue. However, in view of the fact that the rulemaking process of the A7WS issue may be time consuming, the NRC Staff will establish some interim re-quirements for the Zimmer Plant and will use these in the operating license process.
Automatic Actuation of Wetwell Sprays Mr. Peltier noted that the Applicant is installing the necessary instrumentation required for the automatic actuation of the wetwell sprays (actuated 10 minutes after 0FFICIAL USE ONLY
s 44 0FFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 the accident) in order' to increase the allowable bypass of the suppression pool during a small break LOCA. We NRC Staff is reviewing the necessary instrumentation diagrams to deter-mine the adequacy of the system to perform its intended func-tion.
Non-Safety Grade Equipment Mr. Wagner indicated that the NRC Staff has some concerns about the use of non-safety grade equipnent to mitigate the consequences of some abnormal operational transients.
%e tac Staff indicated that this is the first time this issue comes up in the licensing process. m ey consider this as a generic issue and they are currently reviewing the a$equacy of certain non-safety grade equipment used to mitigate the con-sequences of some abnormal operational transients such as feedwater flow control failure, on a generic basis.
I Mr. Wagner noted that the NRC Staff's position on this issue for Zimmer is that the equipnent relied upon to mitigate the most limiting transient (the excess feedwater event) be identi-fled in the plant technical specifications with regard to availability, setpoints, and surveillance testing. 'Ihe Appli-cant has been requested to submit his plan for implementing the NRC Staff's requirements on this issue.
APPLICANT'S WRITTEN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED DURIfC THE NOVEMBER 17, 3978 SUBCOMMITI'EE MEETItG The Subcommittee discussed briefly some of the questions raised during the Subcommittee meeting on November 17, 1978 and the Applicants written response to those questions (Attachment E).
(The comments pertinent to the adequacy of the Applicant's vritten response is included in these minutes under the Executive Session.)
0FFICIAL USE ONLY
s 4m 0FFICIAL USE ONLY Mn. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO NRC STAFF'S PRESENTATION - MR. FLYNN (CG&E)
Mr. Flynn stated that the Applicant agrees with the status report provided by the NRC Staff on the emergency core cooling system.
The Applicant provided some comments on the confirmatory items. We discussion and comments on some of those items are provided below:
Toxic Chemicals (Route 52)
In response to a question from Mr. Bender as to whether the Applicant anticipates any problem in resolving the issue on toxic chemicals transported along Route 52.,
Mr. Flynn noted that there may be some problems in establishing the specific j
kind and quanity of chemicals transported along Route 52.
He noted that this issue has developed very recently.
Mr. Flynn noted that the Applicant is not able to perform an analysis of this problan due to lack of specific information on the nature of the toxic materials transported on Route 52.
- However, since the Applicant has some specific information on'the toxic materials transported through the Chessie System Railroad, he performed an analysis assuming that the materials shipped by rail are in turn handled by trucks and transported along Route 52 to plants in the area of the Zimmer plant.
Information pertinent to this analysis is included in Attachment I.
In response to a question from Mr. Bender as to what the NRC Staff expects from the Applicant on this issue, Mr. Peltier noted that the Applicant should comply with the requirements delineated in Regulatory Guide 1.78, " Assumptions for Evalua-tion of Habitability of Nuclear Plant Control Room During a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release," which requires that the shipnent of toxic materials within 5 miles of the plant be analyzed if the frequency of shipnent is more than 10 times per year. Se NRC Staff learned that there are about 400 to 0FFICIAL USE ONLY c
C 6 s
OFFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 i
600 vehicles pass by the Zimmer plant along Route 52 every day.
l If the materials transported on Route 52 are only ammonia and chloride, there will rot be any problem because the control room is well protected against the accidental release of these materials.
However, if some other toxic materials are transported on Route 52, they should be analyzed as required by Regulatory Guide 1.78 and adequate design provisions, possibly a detector that would isolate the control room in the event of the release of some toxic materials other than ammonia and chloride, should be I
incorporated into Zimmer design.
In response to a question from Dr. Catton, Mr. Presky from Sargent & Lundy noted that most of the vehicles which carry toxic chemicals will use some sort of identification such as " Hazardous Materials".
Dr. Catton pointed out that if the vehicles carry some identi-fication symbol, it would be easy to get a good statistics of the nature of the materials transported along Route 52 by counting those specific vehicles for a very short period of time. Using 1
t the license plate numbers and other pertinent information, it I
would be easy to get the exact materials transported on Route 52.
\\
Qualification of Equipment - Mr. Brinkman, CG&E Mr. Brinkman noted that the NRC Staff has reviewed the infor-mation on the qualification of the equipment on the balance of plant system side. S e NRC Staff has issued necessary criteria for evaluating the equipnent qualification on the NSSS side.
%e Applicant believes that he can begin the analysis of the NSSS side equipnent prior to getting the operating license.
l l
However, he be lieves that it will rot be possible to complete
]
I the assessment of NSSS side equipnent prior to the operating 0FFICIAL USE ONLY i
66 i
OFFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 license issuance. Therefore, he believes that the tRC Staff s
\\ should not make this as a strong requirement that the assessment
- of the NSSS side equipnent should be completed prior to the operat-ing license issuance.
Use of Non-Safety Grade Equipment Mr. Johnson from GE noted that this is a new issue in the licensing process. GE does not agree with the IRC Staff that this is a generic issue. He believes that non-safety grede equipment has been used for mitigation of abnormal transients. GE believes that such equipnent can be relied upon to perform its intended function.
In response to a question from Mr. Bender, Mr. Tedesco, tRC Staff, noted that the issue on the use of non-safety grade equipnent has been looked at by the IRC Staff in a generic sense. For the Zimmer Plant the feed-water transients are identified as the limiting ones. The' tRC Staff will develop some technical specifications on this for the Zimmer Plant.
Indicating that it seems that the NRC Staff does not have any position in relation to resolving this issue, Mr. Bender asked whether the IRC Staff intends to delay the issuance of operating license for Zimmer until this issue is resolved.
i Mr. Tedesco respanded that the NRC Staff does not plan to hold up the operating license for the Zimmer Plant because of this issue. He believes that appropriate steps are being taken to resolve this issue prior to operating license issuance.
l 0FFICIAL USE ONLY o_
7-______
Y %
J 0FFICIAL USE ONLY Mn. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 INDUSTRIAL SECURITY (CLOSED) - MR. SCH7IT, CG&E Mr. Schott reviewed briefly the industrial security plan for the Zimmer Plant. He noted that the security plan for the Zimmer Plant is in con-formnnce with the requirements delineated in Regulatory Guide 1.17,
" Protection of Nuclear Power Plants Against Industrial Sabotage." A revised security plan intended to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 73.55 had been submitted to the NRC Staff in May 1977, and it is being reviewed by the NRC Staff. The results of the NRC Staff's evalua-tion will be reported in a SSER.
Mr. Schott indicated that telephones, walkie-talkies, and appropriate wireless sets will be used as communication channels. A security supervisor will be residing at the Zimmer Plant. In the event of an emergency, the security supervisor will take appropriate actions.
In response to a question from Mr. Bender, Mr. Schott noted that the
?rimary responsibility for the offsite security support lies with the Clermont County Sheriff. OG&E has radio communications with the Clermont County Sheriff's dispatcher.
In the event of an energency, 03&E expects help from the Sheriff's office within ten minutes.
In addition, CG&E can also get assistance from the Moscow County as well as from the Ohio State Patrol.
i In response to another question from Mr. Bender regarding provisions to I
preclude the incidents caused by the insiders, Mr. Schott noted that all 1
1 the Plant Staff will be thoroughly checked prior to their employment.
In j
addition, medical evaluation will be performed on each individual by the j
\\
medical officer to determine each persons mental stability.
{
Mr. Schott indicated that CG&E believes that the Zimmer security plan is as good as or better than any other security plans that have been licensed for other nuclear plants.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY l
{
- $w -
0FFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 Applicant's Response on Mark II Containment Issues - Mr. Brinkman, CG&E Mr. Brinkman provided the following status report with regard to the Mark II containment issues:
1.
With regard to the issue on asymmetric pool swell load, he noted that the Zimmer Containment was evaluated in accordance with the NRC Staff's criteria on this issue.
He believes that the structure will take this load.
An evaluation report on this issue will be submitted in March 1979.
2.
Procedures for in-plant test programs and instrumentation requirements for in-plant tests are being developed.
Mr. Brinkman volunteered to send draft copies of the instrumentation requirements for in-plant tests to the Subcommittee end its consultants, i
3.
We Applicant believes that using ring vortex model for evaluating the issue on LOCA jet submerged drag load will be a realistic cpproach.
Mr. Brinkman volunteered to submit the details of the model and also volunteered to show a movie which ex-plains this phenomena.
Se Subcommittee suggested that the Applicant try to send the movie on or before March 7, 1979 so as to enable the ACRS full Committee to see this movie prior to the 227th ACRS meeting.
l OFFICIAL USE ONLY
d OFFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 4.
With regard to the item on LOCA/SRV air bubble drag load, Mr. Brinkman noted that they are working with Issalle and Shoreham to come up with a generic solution. W ey expect to provide a status report on this issue in March 1979.
DISCUSSION ON SOME SPECIFIC ITEM 3 Arrangements for Fire Fighting Personnel - Mr. Schott, CG&E Mr. Schott noted that the Applicant has made arrangements with the Washington Township Volunteer Fire Department; this is a volunteer group and has the prime responsibility to respond in the event of a fire at the Zimmer Plant.
In the event of an energency, Washington Township Fire Department will send at least 5 personnel within 5 minutes to the Zimmer Plant. Washington Township Fire Irpartment will be backed-up by the Richmond Fire Department (Volunteer Group), if necessary. Richmond Fire Department personnel will be able to come to the Zimmer Plant within 10 to 12 minutes.
Status of Applicant's Recruitment of Operating Personnel - Mr. Schott, 03&E I
Mr. Schott stated that the Applicant expects to have a maintenance engineer on board on March 5,1979. Wey already have a backup reactor engineer who has been on Zimmer Plant site for about four months. Wey are in the pro-cess of recruiting several other personnel as necessary.
Mr. Bender asked what contingency plan the Applicant has in the event of j
losing some key plant personnel.
I 1
Mr. Schott responded that in a situation like that they will designate some members of the plant technical staff to act as back-up personnel. %ese back-up personnel will also go.through the same training process as the primary personnel.
In response to a question from Mr. Bender as to whether the Applicant has made any arrangements with other organizations to get assistance in the l
l 1
0FFICIAL USE ONLY l
r
e m a
OFFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 event of an emergency, Mr. Schott noted that they are developing back-up capability within the Zimmer Plant Steff; he believes that they will be able to develop sufficient capability within their Staff to handle the emergency situation.
Mr. Bender commented that the back-up personnel may not have adequate experience to handle the complex problems. He believes that in the event of losing seme key personnel for one reason or another, it is advisable to make arrangements to have access to other resources to handle the situation.
In response to another question from Mr. Bender, Mr. Schott noted that if a back-up personnel is assigned to help a maintenance supervisor he will act as an assistant to the maintenance supervisor; he will not be involved in other tasks.
Mr. Bender asked whether the Applicant has made such a commitment to the NRC Staff that there will be an assistant to the maintenance supervisor.
Mr.' Schott noted that they have not made such a commitment to the NRC Staff. However, they plan to do this.
Mr. Bender commented that the back-up program for Zimmer Plant seems inadequate. He suggested that the Applicant should make arrangements with other organizations to get assistance to handle an emergency situa-tion.
Mechanisms Established for Obtaining Information on and Utilizing Industry Experience - Mr. Schott, 03&E Mr. Schott noted that they have arrangements to receive information based on operating experience. 'Ihey get such information from the NSSS Vendor, Inspection and Enforcement Branch of NRC and other utilities. Such informa-tion received will be discussed and incorporated into Zimmer design as appropriate.
0FFICIAL USE ONLY t
4 0FFICIAL USE ONLY t
i Wn. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 1
Foundation Settlement Measurements - Mr. Herman, CG&E Mr. Herman noted that they have been measuring the foundation settlements at 22 different locations.
It is being measured at every three months.
They observed that the settlements at these points are unifonn and within the limits as stated in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
In response to a question from Dr. Zudans as to whether they notice any perturbations when the water level in the Ohio River went up, Mr. Herman noted that he is not aware of any such instance. He added that they did not make any special measurement during the high flood level period.
Dr. Zudans suggested that it is advisable to measure the settlements during high flood level period.
Mr. Flynn noted that they will arrange for settlement measurements during the first week of March 1979, as they expect high flood level during that period.
In response to some questions from Mr. Bender, Mr. Heller, NRC Staff, noted that the NRC Staff is satisfied with the Zimmer Plant settlement monitoring system. Ihe NRC Staff does not monitor the effects of the settlement at the Zimmer Plant because the Applicant has been measuring the settlement since 1975, and it was observed that all the settlements are within prediction.
Dr. Zudans asked whether the NRC Staff has reviewed the Applicants analysis of the settlement effect on the structures.
Mr. Peltier indicated that he will provide this information at a later date.
0FFICIAL USE ONLY
n 1
1 0FFICIAL USE ONLY l
Wm. F. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 l
Dewatering of the Compacted Backfill Mr. Herman from CG&E provided some bases to substantiate the Applicant's pasition on this issue that the water level in the compacted backfill i
can be maintained at 480 feet as agreed upon during the construction per-mit stage (Attachment J).
Quality Assurance Program Indicating that a recent article appeared in the Cincinnati Post (Attachment K) gives the implication that the implementation of the quality assurance program at the Zimmer Plant seems to be inadequate, Mr. Bender asked why and how the NRC Staff believes that the quality assurance program for the Zimmer Plant is adequate and satisfactory to them.
Mr. Conway from the NRC Staff responded that he believes that the quality assurance organization for the Zimmer Plant has the required independence and authority to implement effectively the quality assurance program require-ments. He stated that he is not aware of the article that appeared in the Cincinnati Post.
Mr. Vandel from Inspection and Enforcement Group of Region III, NRC, stated that they had performed several quality assurance inspections during the construction phase of the Zimmer Plant; they did rot identify any peculiar problems related to quality assurance. He added that the article appeared in the Cincinnati Post carried come inisquotes and misleading statements.
Mr. Isa Yin from the Inspection and Enforcement Group of Region III, NRC, stated that he provided some information to the Cincinnati Post article.
His earlier inspection of the pipe hangers at the Zimmer Plant indicated that the workmanship, installation, and the record-keeping were not in accor-dance.with the NRC Staff's requirements. However, since then some corrective actions have been taken by the Applicant, and he believes that now it is getting better. He noted that individual hanger support calculations are l
OFFICIAL USE ONLY t
o w
)
0FFICIAL USE ONLY
)
l Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 being performed by Sargent & Lundy, and as soon as a major portion of the calculation is completed he plans to perform an in-depth inspection.
Mr. Bender sought some clarification of a statement in the Cincinnatti j
Post which states:
"Mr. Yin noted that about 50 of the plant's anti-l shocking devices that cushion the pipes from earthquakes were of a make he considers unsound. Utility Officials dispute this opinion."
l Mr. Yin stated that this refers to the mechanical snubbers used at the Zimmer Plant. %e manufacturers (International Nuclear Safeguard Cor-poration) of these snubbers are no longer in business. Based on his experience, he believes that these snubbers may not perform the function it is designed for. He also understood that some nuclear power plants such as Cooper and the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) were abandoning similar snubbers. During his recent visit to Korea, he also came to know that some of the snubbers (similar to the ones which are used at the Zimmer Plant) were completely frozen.
Mr. Bender sought come response from the Applicant on this issue.
l Mr. Schwiers from CG&E indicated that the pipe hanger issue was under their surveillance prior to Mr. Yin's visit to the Zimmer Plant. Wey did recognize that they had some problems. When Mr. Yin visited the Zimmer Plant, he identified some of the problems they already had. Wey are in the process of redesigning the hangers and they believe that they eventually will have an adequate pipe hanget system at the Zimmer Plant.
'With regard to the issue on the quality of the snubbers, he noted that the Applicant does not have any strong evidence to indicate that these snubbers will perform its intended function. Therefore, they are in the process of buying snubbers from a different manufacturer which are accept-able to the NRC Staff. Wey do not plan to discard th<> snubbers they have already bought; they intend to save them for the time being.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
~
0FFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 In response to a question from Mr. Bender as to whether CG&E had discussed this issue with the personnel at the Cooper Plant in view of the fact that they are also replacing these snubbers, Mr. Schwiers noted that they discussed this matter with the personnel at the Cooper Plant. Rey found that the snubbers manufactured for the Cooper Plant were some what different; one of the differences is that the snubbers manufactured for the Zimmer Plant use all stainless steel. %ey are also checking to see whether the snubbers for the Zimmer Plant were manufactured at the same time as those for the Cooper Plant.
Mr. Bender remarked that he believes that the NRC Staff will make sure that the problems identified on the pipe hanger system will be resolved to their satisfaction.
Huskie Cable Tray Allegations - Mr. Schwiers, 03&E Mr. Schwiers noted that the cable trays for the Zimmer Plant was supplied by the Huskie Company. One of the former employees of the Huskie Company made some allegations that the materials used by the Huskie Company in manufacturing the cable trays were inferior and not in compliance with the specifications.
In addition, this former employee stated that some of the welding on the cable trays was performed by unqualified welders.
Consequently, CG&E conducted an independent review of the Huskie records.
The results of their review indicated that the materials used for the cable trays far exceeded the specification limits. Rey also conducted independent tests on some samples taken from the cable trays which verified that the materials used did exceed the specified requirements by 30 to 35 percent. Rey also conducted some non-destructive examination on the welds and found them satisfactory. As far as the qualification of the welders is concerned, there were two welders, who had been with the Huskie Company since the mid 50's, who were not qualified for a very short period of time; however, these two welders were qualified shortly 0FFICIAL USE ONLY
c Ah 0FFICIAL USE ONLY Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 afterwards, c3&E believes that this issue did not affect the quality of the cable tray fabrication.
Mr. Schwiers also indicated that a group identified as CARE and another group headed by Mr. Michael Bancroft of the Public Citizens Litigation Group recently discussed this Huskie cable tray allegations with the Region III Inspection and Enforcement Group of the NRC.
After completion of the scheduled presentations Mr. Bender solicited comments from the ACRS consultants.
Dr. Zudans indicated that he would like to get additional information on the energy absorption capability of the pipe whip restraints.
Mr. Bender asked the Applicant to provide the response to this issue in writing prior to the 227th ACRS full Committee meeting.
Mr. Bender also suggested that the NRC Staff and the Applicant should be i
prepared to discuss the status of the implementation of Regulatory Guide 1.97, " Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant Conditions During and Following an Accident."
SUBCOMMITTEE REMARKS l
'Ihe Subcommittee indicated that it would recommend the operating license application of the CG&E to the ACRS full Committee for review during the 227th ACRS Meeting (March 8-10, 1979).
Mr. Bender suggested that the ACRS full Committee may wish to hear at least the following items in detail:
1.
Status of the Zimmer Plant (include construction status, fuel loading date, and other relevent information).
2.
Brief description of the plant by using a clear diagram.
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
, ow
~
0FFICIAL USE ONLY '
l Wm. H. Zimmer, Unit 1 February 27, 1979 3.
Organizational Plans - How does the Applicant intend to establish the staffing.
4.
Transport of Toxic Chemicals Along Route 52.
5.
A'IWS issue.
i 6.
Reactor flow control system.
7 Status of Mark II containment issues.
Mr. Bender noted that should there be any other items identified for dis-cussion, the Applicant and the NRC Staff will be notified immediately.
Mr. Bender thanked all the participants and a:ljourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
NCTTE: For additional details, a complete transcript of the meeting is available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H St., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20555, or from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.,
444 North Capital Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
i 0FFICIAL USE ONLY
~