ML20235E841

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 740816 Meeting W/Ge to Discuss Gessar Application,Including Gessar Schedule,Future Technical Meetings,Procedural Considerations & Future Standarization Matters.List of Attendees,Viewgraphs & Related Info Encl
ML20235E841
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, 05000447
Issue date: 09/03/1974
From: Crutchfield D
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20234E460 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-40 NUDOCS 8707130111
Download: ML20235E841 (13)


Text

..

, / **, UNITED STATES

\IS ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

{'A I. '

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545 h'/ %n .,

RECE.VED DOCKET NO: SIN 50-447 DATE:

G74 SfP 3 MP 13 FM 2 lo 1974 APPLICANT: GENEPAL ELECTRIC COMPANY t I . ;.1 '. , , _. CCM.1.

, ' V ' I '.i . . Y - . 'iILE ON APPLICATION: ESSAR ACi0R E,;EGnaDS MWAGEMEt7f MEETING 'IO DISCWS GSSAR On August 16, 1974, we met with representatives of General Electric to discuss the GSSAR application. Specific areas of discussion included the GSSAR schedule, future technical meetings, procedural considerations and future standardization matters. We told G that based on the current type and number of outstanding issues, we did not think that it was likely that TSSAR would get an ACRS letter with only a single meeting. e said that since Mr. Case had assuned Mr. O'Ieary responsibilities and Mr. Stuare had assumed Mr. Hinds' duties, they wished to renew their dedication to the , goals of standardization and obtain assurance that the staff was as dedicated as 'G. A list of attenSees is enclosed, as is a copy of the 2 handout.

t

1. .ESSAR Schedule and Future 'Ibchnical Meetings 2 noted that they planned to subtit Amenitent 19 on August 23, 1974 and Au drent 20 on August 30, 1974. 'Ihey expected that these tse ameninents would resolve about 25 open itans, and the round 2 EI and C questions. We agreed that many of the 25 open itans would be resolved since they would be documentation of previously discussed information, but noted that there are still many nore items that have not been resolved to our satisfaction. Anong the outstanding major items are such things as PRT for which we do not have a ccrnplete story as to why GE needs PRP, what it is to acocmplish, or what the alternatives are to PRP that 2 proposes. Another major item is inconsistencies in GESSAR, especially in the EI and C section.

As presently written, these GESSAR chapters are ret consistent arong each other and, in many cases, inconsistent within a chapter. A lack of enough consistent information in Chapter 7 has prevented us frcrn writing our safety evaluation of the instrumentation and control area.

G said they would get us a story on PRr. 'Ihey also suggested we provide our list of inconsistencies to then and they will clean up GESSAR, especially in the EI and C area. We stated we will make our list known to GE and the EI and C reviewer may go to San Jose in an effort to speed up information transmitted to us so than an SER for Chapter 7 will be available before the October ACRS.

We noted that due to the current type and quantity of open itsns,

(

)

8707130111 870623 PDR FOIA PDR THOMASB7-40

E .

l MF 3 M4 GSSAR we did not think the ACRS would consider and cmplete its review of TSSAR in only one session. Review at two ACRS sessions could involve a two to three nonth time span between meetings. Included in this span would be time by 2 to subnit additional information, time by the staff for review and writeup, and publication of an SER supplment a nonth before the next ACRS meeting. E felt that rather than slip a nonth now, they would like us to review Amendment 19 arx3 20 to determine their effect on the open items. Ihey also proposed technical meetings to discuss these forthecming amendments. 'Ihe meeting would occur before the amendments were subnitted and preview the contents of the amendments, as well as cleanup other open itss.

2. Procedural Considerations 2 wanted to know what our sign-off document on TSSAR would consist of.

We said that it would be a staff SER along with letter to E granting preliminary design approval, stating that GSSAR is approved for d

referencing by utilities, and noting how it should be referenced to provide the nest benefit. '~

I G wanted to know if we still planned to handle " red-tag" itms as r previously discussed. We stated that we intend to publish the SER and proceed with the case with thbse itms not empletely resolved. However, such " red-tag" items, whose review we intend to canplete in nere detail lata.r (but are acceptable for now), should be limited to only a few issues.

3. ITiture Standardization Matters G wanted to kncw our thoughts on an eJWironmental report and possible rule naking concerning TSSAR. We said that an ER would be needed only if they wished to proceed to a rule making and discouraged it at this time as not being cost effective.

2 wished to krru the status of our NSSS interface review on the 238 TSSAR.

We noted our May 30, 1974, letter to G that stated that we would begin our review of this item in the fall. We intend to do this review as part of the 251 ESSAR review; in fact, it will probably be a large part of our 251 TSSAR review. We agreed to conduct the NSSS interface review early in the 251 safety review and apply those results to the 238 NSSS interface review.

/

'I D.M.Crutchf). eld,ProjectManager Light Water Reactors Project Branch 2-1 Directorate of Licensing I

Enclosure:

List of Attendees

1 ATTENDEES -

AUGUST 16, 1974 1

Managcennt Meeting to Discuss GESSAR AEC General Electric Caupany E. G. Case I. Stuart F. Schroeder V. Stello W. Gilbert V. beore R. Tedesco L. Gifford J. Kastner D. Crutchfield t

l J

l

i REVIEW 0F G E f1 E R A L ELECTRIC S T A f! D A R D I Z A T I 0 ff P R O G R A f1 I

(

AuausT16,197tl l

l 1

l

l I

TOPICS FOR DISCUSS 10ll j 1

I 1

SCHEDULE FOR GESSAR . REVIEW l

l TE0l!!ICAL f1EETllES l

PROCEDURAL C0!!SIDERATI0I5 a ..

FUTURE STAiH)ARDI71tTI0fl ITETS l 4

4 e

'9 8/16/74


j

SCHEDULE FOR GESSAR REVIEW i i i i AMBU 1Bffs DY GE lb.19 - CLEN4UP ITEMS -

25 TOPICS- AucuST23,1974 I lb. 20 - Rouro 2 I & C RESP 0f4SES AUGUST.30 lb. 21 - APPEtoIX 4A -

PHYSICS SEPTEMBER 27 lb. 22 - I & C DESIGt4 & IRNISIEra ANALYSIS JANUARY 31,1975 STAFFSER SEPTEFEER9,1974 ACRS SUBCGT11TTEE f1EETilE SEPTEBBER ll ACRS SUI'CGillTTEE IEETIllG OCTOBER 8 i

! i ACRS FULL C0111TTEE ilEETllE 0cTOBER11 ACfS LETTER OCTOBER 18 SUPPLB1Bff TO STAFF SER DECBGER 2 AEC SIG!l 0FF LETTER DECEBBER2

-(

8/16/74

PROPOSED T E C H il l C A L MEETIl1GS  !

i (AMEt@Dff Ib. 19 - CLEANUP ITEMS 8/23).

EETIIB - PREVIEW 0F NEUEff 10.19 AucusT 22 s

1 (AMEfGENT Ib. 20 - Rouno 2 I & C 8/30)

MEETilE - PREVIBl 0F 1 & C RESF0i!SES AfD CEAf;UP IjlSCUSS10iiS Ofl N. ERB 1T ID.19 AucusT 29 (SER ISSUED 9/9) i; MEETil,G - CLEAIUP DISCUSS 10iis Oil NEDEfT !O 19 4

ND 20 NO REVI&l STATUS OF SER SEPTBBER 5-1 1

8/16/74

(

PROCEDURAL C o ll S I D E R A T I O N S e

AEC sigil OFF LEITER FOR GESSAR ACRS ROLE IN GESSAR RD/IBI ADDITI0inL AEC REQUESTS APPEAL AND RED TY; liBIS l .

l l

1 i

(

8/16/7/4 I

l

. FUTURE STAflDARDIZATI0ft ITEMS I

GESSAR STATUS AFTER AEC sigil-OFF IIRBUlTATI0il 0F GESSAR bNIRO.TDITAL REPORT l

IEARIl0 ISSS IlfEPFACE REVIEW Oil 238 GESSAR 251 GESS4R I

l 8/.16//4 i

)

?

.h 4,

SW h UNITED STATES

\S/-

yev s

. l. 1 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION GESS#g

/j ')

e w

%ne f /$

Docket No. STN 50-447 DISTRIBUTION OF MEETING

SUMMARY

DATED I w FOR GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (CESSAR)

General Electric Company Mr. W. Gilbert, Manager ATTN: Mr. John A. Hinds, Manager Safety and Standards Safety and Licensing General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95114 San Jose, California 95114 Mr. L. Gifford, Manager Regulatory Operations Unit General Electric Company 4720 Montgomery Lane Bethesda, Maryland 20014 i

(Ykhk COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR CG&E's ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION: UNIT 1; Docket No. 50-358*

by Thomas E. Eaton U.S. NRC/ACRS Consultant Contract No. 11-78-632 15 November 1978

1. The Draft SER indicates (section 3.5.2, p. 3-6) that steam turbine missiles having a low trajectory could not damage the Diesel generators because of a grazing impact with the turbine building floor. Is there a significant potential for damage to the Diesel generators by high trajectory steam turbine missiles?
2. Since the pressure suppression function of the Mark II containment system is an important safety feature of the plant, is it possible that the wetwell spray system should be assigned a more important role in the Mark II contain-ment system (cf., pp. 6 6-17)? ,
3. On page 6-17, is it possible that the General Electric Co. test program was for the Mark III pressure suppression containment instead of for the Mark II containment?
4. The containment hydrogen recombiner system is located outside containment and is designed for 62 psig (p. 6-33); are the containment intake end discharge openings to this system adecuately protected against jet impact?
5. What is the source of steam for the feedwater pump turbines (p. 7-12) after the reactor is isolated?
6. The suppression pool temperature monitoring system in the i Draft SER (p. 7-19) does not comply with requirements in the Mark II Generic Acceptance Criteria and Draft Load Evaluation Report (cf. pp. III-89 to 111-90).

1 I

.I COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SER FOR ZIMMER' UNIT 1 ( ontinued)

7. ;The Diesel generator fuel oil system contains a " day" tank, cf. p. 9-10, with a capacity of 550 gallons. The EMD 4000 horsepower (nominal) generators have a BSFC (specific fuel consumption) of 0.40 lbm/HP-hr (nominal) and will empty the " day" tank in about 2-1/2 hours.
8. On page 11-9, should the I-131 release be not greater than one Curie _per. reactor per-year?
9. On page 15-3, "the surface heat flux never exceeds 75 per cent" ... of what?
10. On page 15-5~(top), are there no other reactivity insertion transients for the BWR/57
11. On page 15-7, is the primary containment leak rate of 0.635 per cent of the containment volume per day based on the volume being at standard temperature and pressure?
12. In the discussion on the fuel handling accident (section 15.3.3, p. 15-10), is it not also assumed that the fuel fails as the result of the drop?
13. Would the consequences of postulated radioactive releases due to liquid tank failures (section 15.3.6, p. 15-15) be more significant if the postulated liquid flow involved i a surface runoff (instead of ground seepage) which carried the liquid released directly to the Ohio River?
14. Is there any relationship between the motor-generator output voltage regulator failure noted in section 7.2.3,
p. 7-5 and the discussion in section 8.4.1, p. 8-8, which relates to DC power systems?
  • During this review of the Zimmer Draft SER, several typing mistakes were identified. This investigator will provide a listing of these corrections if requested by the U.S. NRC.

.J i

INITIAL FINDINGS:

CAUSES FOR CONTAINMENT RELATED LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS (LER's) by Thomas E. Eaton U.S. NRC/RCRS Consultant Contract No. 11-78-632 16 November 1978 Below are listed various causes of containment related failures reported as LER's. These causes are identified in this preliminary listing because their frequency of occurance has identified them as potentially significant deficiencies.

Because this review of LER's has only just started, this list should be considered as preliminary and incomplete.

A. Design of Containment Airlock Door Interlocks B. Air lock Door Seal Leaks i

C. Airlock Handwheel Seal Leaks .

D. Weld failures in the Heat Effected Zone E. Liquid Nitrogen Not Ordered (Delivered) Such that Contain-ment can be Inerted as Required F. Railroad Door Seal Leaks G. Hydraulic Fluid Loss from Seismic Snubbers H. Ice Build-up Interfering with Door Operation in Westinghouse Ice Condenser Containments I. Vibration Fatiguing of Small Pipes and Tubes J. Doors Blocked Open by Workmen to Allow Temporary Hoses, Wires,.etc. to Enter Reduced Pressure Buildings.

K. Oxygen Analyzer Errors L. Failures in Liquid Nitrogen Supply Systems M. Containment Spray System Component Failures I