ML20245K649

Submits Daily Highlight.On 890622,facility Manually Scrammed During Natural Circulation Test.Circumstances of Event Under Investigation by Licensee & NRC Augmented Insp Team.Test Will Be Rescheduled as Part of Power Escalation Test

ML20245K649
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/26/1989
From:	Nerses V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Grimes B, Mckee P, Murley T NRC
Shared Package
ML20245K651	List: ML20245K649 ML20247G333 ML20247R202 ML20247R210 ML20247R227 ML20247R245
References
FOIA-89-309 NUDOCS 8907050209
Download: ML20245K649 (16)

Text

.

. n y y,..g y y' 1

~

9p, UNITED STATES

^~

~~ ' '

fd

' ~

y,

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'-'rf 3

WASmNG TcN, D. C. 20835 h'(

gy

+,,,,,,.

June 26,1989 Q. gg pgg Docket No. 50-443, MEMORANDUM FOR:

T. Murley*.

B. Grimes P. McKee J. Sniezek*

F. Congel A. Thadani F. Miraglia, ADT*

J. Roe C. McCracken J. Partlow, ADP*

C. Grinnes W. Lanning

}

D. Crutchfield, ADSP*

B. Boger H. B. Clayton, EDO S. Yarga G. Lainas Operations Center **

G. Holahan M. Virgilio F. Gillespie C. Rossi L. Rubenstein W. Bateman L. Shao B. D. Liaw T. Cox****

THRU:

ichard H. Wessman, Director i

Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Frojects I/II FROM:

Victor Nerses, Project Manager i

Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II

SUBJECT:

DAILY HIGHLIGHT Seabrook - Completion of Low Power Testing PSNH informed the staff today that all low power testing, except the natural circulation test, has been completed and that the Seabrook facility will be cooled down to cold shutdown on June 27 1989. With the exception of the natural circulation test, all low power, test program objectives were met. Based upon initial. review, all reactor physics parameters were as expected. The licensee consumed about 20 minutes, of the 45 effective full power minutes allowed by the license (.75 EFPH).

On June 22, 1989, the Seabrook facility was manually scranned during the conduct of a natural circulation test. The circumstances of this event are being investigated by the licensee. The NRC is dispatching an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT),~1ead by Region I, to evaluate the event.

The natural circulation test will be rescheduled as part of the power escalation test program.

N n

Victor Nerses. Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II cc: PD's j

Yk

]

46~o ba//

/

Sn Yfe 14.. acss a

,1 m

em o

a=,a

'e&n M+/mmb g yA, s

/

-- s s

s pac <a-g x,y~xp awxsunesax

[J.

G b~ ~ JMn ~f

- sp xaca4, An Lasms, f

F~~~g, LA Qw ~/7pe

& ?a e W ~ M a f x C A_

a

/h_,

/f

%n

p.-. - - _. -. - - -, - - - -. -....

I y

1 Tesf

,fragy(W / 5 fan 3/m Tvag 7O

ywy--

y 9

4

^

g

,[

y

l Y

l lT$h

$ Y v

y-_

-n-----

l La bn ws

O I

i 0

g- - -

t Ok De&kb 'Sefw~ '. c5A Evek (Usd DuhLy a

e h

de f

^d'l l$

h V

'V/ d'A A

+'

t j

l 1

1

IN6 1 *.

2.

• POWER ASCENSION TEST GROUP TRANSIEF ANALYSIS TEST i'

.i.

m 1

_ DATF 7-&M 1/8 -

N s

I.

O. Describe system response to a loss of normal fee #ater at hot zero power

~ ~~

t onI s

~

nf onal As

~

^

there Is no operator InIhtIO( yRWQk nk:r,1sfyt;&F :

J'.i ~

' iF,5 -

^[y;

-.. su.:..

2.

'~

4n

f, fy;z.

~ T:l,.--:;;%9&. ;;~....+...:...~,.

a.5 A.,

• * -.i: n:

..;9 fp.~

2.ra.gir

- dx;i..

. u,:

i

'I Informadon in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of Informatiorf Act, exgem tions h FOIA m-M 2.

Q. For the :oss c' 0~ a! f+edwater i.+ t, what must b+ done to 5 tab 11:e the plant?

Assume that - : '-' :al malfunc: :.r :anr.c: ce racialv :crrec ec.

.. c:.

~

u.. r.,

Yr +

4

^ 7).t. s s..

...:.... ? :.:..:- s n t

c '

,..s. t

, :,,1f-M

. ? ',.

J

v. $ d o y.-

/

~

, s. g..wa

.v + As,b) M g (L d e $u y &

' f,I,5 $ s b h i

j,J :p

'; A #.a t.c. L.3.,., L. r & M

~

csA~'

, ep;yg w,. s HA d. lod y r

l. 8,L u Iay/

4

,6 a h u & ~' &

p 7

y.f A v.

o!.

5

,*.JJh'A'

'Y

,,.f*l.r.)

/

s

.o=

..s

y vu' If uCU C/ UU U M-) U %) U@

Wb 7

DATr 7-8-86 2/8 N

u

~

3.

0: T'he plant is at HIP (critical), EOL, when a low pressure feedwater heater bypass valve opens.

h.

gt f

1. pt. protection,s fea i

m,..

2. Why will the above protection feature. actuate?

paf?;;

~

-nW'&scyqk994iskw r-:.. a w..xp%:-

. i,

3. Is the transient more severe..pt 80L or EOL, or does It' matter? Vey?.

A.$+2a6yh?h.? hNN5'2Yj Y b

r-V/^ M 4-g 4

~ "

%.,4

.c C i 6T/' C.-

MA &%

w..

. -Qg-..

~ n.,c 2;

Vj't?!45/*/e P d' AT 4k therlbM/ hW pt pyd1 cw!A Wd'e b refr/rrehtwid,hieptO - d 0

f j

< 3. Egg,,

hi s,q.N de ) #!'l : !

'.!n!

Abde aa.iaiy ereObedb /xy Jferesyinsini9 / kit *8h 4

0; Th'e plant is at hot standby when a control system malfunction causes a feedwater control valve to go fully open.

1. What would you do to terminate *.his accident?

2. What pro &::" system func: : uill :grminate :ne ever.t1 Extra n 3. If you are r Mode 2 during inical star.:0, with or.e 'i. r+2 ding 5 x 10 -H amos, would the sacter go/be critical? Explain.

A' A. ~) 9 i f r,. Sj]nd j fuf&ty:

Ncis-

.-r /.wa?M f

$b'sf E'

• /- 27$ !dCdrho!Y ? ' y,,,-(,7;,p,yypllj, A M * :--

&.. 42 was svd 1

. ~

3 foch:.w oz wr//y :..h.d du.A n4Awis d/-

.iw <.a.ia,.: e.2.=

..,. f 0 i

j

^ '

PATG Transient TesL t

1 sw; n

'3/8 NAd

't DAh 7/94 l

l 5.

0 A steam generator safety valve falls open with the reacD hot stan@y c

Describe the primary system pressure response as the event progresses.

l1 :n G

i.?

)#N"##.

~

.Y

$ /db5llCkf

$f8,tes+?w+n.. :. ::<. ju; y?ih$.

^ 0

^. '!. '.t.YWe /,de.u!e/ Y.aber

.iNo ltYYllt c $*h

~

dt 1

I.... v

/

y g.g:.

cc.

c tY.

$Yh h

e,/}CE? [sehk

'j_

r

' U h fNCHlubidf/$tcc/

4 fo'irMry* gpp/hp i..

v[#l' d*A~ h #d< e hy a era eba :.,n,wgw /u /aa pr c u rre/ n.c At ei V.(

N* Y t'be/tAcbd aM dn/4,4/g ///f terLMoccw,(ve /su.)S&

.3 i;i d e f a w a r.? l.

. ;.,,,,in,.c yf,

6 0; A 5 team generator safety valve falls open with the reactor in fiode 3. What primary and secondary equipment might be used to regain some control of the event. Explain the effect of the equipment mentioned.

4/a N#8

.DATr' 7.-

0: For the loss of AC power event:

l

1. What is the major concern during this event?

rav c-;

' ~ " h."hfhihmal feedwah floffiO[Nh.;.

as :.h,.w.

d$eT6 sin

.,.e ;

x >:

3..Why is this event more limiting than the FSAR turbine trip event?bidEM@ v

n.,..

=.

.e.~r. e k 1.

.. s

..,J:m;..g 5

~

. > 9% ;v

~

i 2.

3.

l l

l L

8.

G: The FSAR analysis shows the turbine trip event to be more severe than an MSly closure.

,1. Why?

2. Would you expect an actual MSiv closure to also be less severe than an actual turDine t.- :? Expialn.

k 1.

2.

7.TAF PATG TranMeat Test '.-

i:Qg:

.-J.

I DATF 7-M-A4 5/8.

N J

9.

' 0: For the partial loss of RCS flow accident, the trip is assumed to come from the ;

low flow bistables. Why doesn't undervoltage or underfrpguency cuase the trfp? ?-

f k lfJrkSN" h;fWlkl"C hh CY flt Mehm..$tIhe' k/k.mg:..

//f**1f 6l Y b h.4:

h

.,m :s

+-

.. fV

..... w:

n.

DV8r4tW/rdY$$.

d A h py spot f* l* UMlOvYYah hh ykb?

p5

),& h h )

bW CDN'Mh //trthe do 0r/0/ j,f[o

_f T u p-r

.. A 4

.,_w t/ 5

~

.;x i

7 p I." a a j. wp J '.m

,. m.i.7 -w ha.T

,f e

5,4:

v. L M* :. ~ a.

A -l W:,.,

<..f-1

% u. '

~~'

.Ni t.

'-.z.- h)D O.

f v ~P u

10.

0: Comparing the partial loss of RCS flow and'the total loss of RCS flow accidents; which transient results in the lowest DNBR7 Why?

k f,oarkef /sss Nbt lis $t IdVSb IJ /Y'bb' WN*

f Aid:

oAlc /<ss.

I,. w.a.:: '. cui.,/ ps: I...

t/,J6 or' p.

. - J.

.!,a se,,,

s,

.er, f is c.:

p E..- 3 u s:<.=

..: - J.

.i:..

~.

..v ;- ?=i'.it ci

,v -

r.

e.. ? esewi se<. w -. pia..

< sci..

< us.

. s =,:. sW.fris,, -tesu A;, heub.; ;

<i,,,,,, ;e g fii,.,.~....,

ji,.

,b.v.h i;i ihe

' y ses..

f..,.l.-a w ; w ? " j ?. m.i d t. D. / / z>,,s.c.,;

. g. Lp g1,,

i

i. 4, t,.

.f n y;;. M'*f9's sia..,' %

Jic. :...etw & l. s'.,, pg.,. pi..sgu.n a /,s i

f

.:Lxk u W k Ha,1ei.Aas.

?, fa;'i fltAs. W f ee A A I"ia is sawer,G wu a hwa. & 'l""'6 s.m/. 4eo s n.

,~-

a

,.- : y~ }? ' de...e:

/rp h.,o.

. -k. ah !,s a Ale sog'a, 4196L'A l

r.

. en ei.. -

ex.ii., s.,,. -

.;.....:,;,.<,g,&& dwu

PATG Transient Te

[. 9, 6/8 N

DATr'7"O"fd

.]

I 1.

0: During heatup, one of your two operating RCPs trips. You then go ahead and start 4

" h,$.s?h,. p/hidl<ifwJUfcPyhdhb one of the (previously) idle pumps. Describe the primary system behavior upon.

Q.

$brhjll4Ylt$ffiv/k/'h titAddik $f NW '

b

,i % ' seu a:M L ada<hdia 4 th,,,wp/y

/,

1.'

$isifph' # ll~

kt /bt?jdllk ft/ h

~

WhW

/

o yv.).g

$fFAh^fo g

g;-

.f/Sojs/w/trofs on2 precep/ f}, p,,,34. e ):cy Of'l b 71dC jrf fiti

$YCS/ebras/flpd7 eMAf'

/

A" IJ bt' Yo lfd'."c,63,/C-/3pr.r.: 5k.

2 iia,/k4./tiy

.. - ), Qof 3 ANects Nlv'ch,Was lAefef suctredpfoe /s guyem&/de

, gf WAv79epue6Ax.

t.^-

12.

0; Af ter a pressurizer safety valve ' falls'open, the depressurization rate does not

' /(

remain constant throughout the event. Neglecting the effects of $1, explain the change in depressulzation rate.

A.

~

a g*

• tem

)

~

=

J p,,,)

________ O

.v w m av eu w us ot* xs r

7/8 NA

_ DATF M k

~

Li -

s s

13.

0: How will Si af tect primary pressure response for the stuck open pressurizer safety valve?

m_:.

A:

14.

0: Assume that you have a steam generator tube rupture. Name four Indications that can be used to distinguish this event from a l.0CA -

2.

'ec..

~

v.

3 le *:.

.. -...;g

. g c, f..,q; a

)

N.':. *..

,f

.. Qg', QQ T~ cue. :.

m, g,,,)

A7 it'e c.

Yd t.J b'

,?lCt.' $lb C/I'w.24"sd 6 7"'I*" k W'YA l N $ YA tilM/A'-

e A:-9 pl.<!,14./ 6,y d,:.. ;:.v: ytleix-h)9,das,n... - sa s sn,, IucI;,1.e,, a ne cefldm cJe u rdred.a I<va I. wto S,).lv. i.-

c /,i

)

7, PATG Transient Te l

DAT d-M -fle --

k e

s/s

d$.'

15.

Q: During the SGTR, how can you get an estima low rate through the break?

.p, N his [ :J h(softekbr'Yl9 lb hN'ltS

. sa9-n. s, /<s. 6..3 spus/t e

3 Me h Jeu /hu.2. kJ 4 M,whad &pha sue 44 44 prouwe h sppww/<V /tcopa;. ;sa,4aula 4,dhe best Sk a4 w/d,asM,s,n m Au,f sh,C/4 ors !?iech' A> pdhb traGda s,v,degi>1<d/ea/&ge 'f blYMjtckW bh/r) flaJ $f. f:*f-9)q 1' 2)3/k//wdnikinjtabek ST.FT-9)f f-922 pi.vus pmf freitul ed s

• i & leve a k es.

l SVudies s"edcAlt AI 8 la */05.iw /A' V**llAd hhIA'"'?s'e UZ/AL i. 0: For a best estimate SGTR, why would the Overtemperature AT trip actuate? 2.p

h kbatidy() R$cie acciclub ft/C / g* l$/Slw llut deob'

'55 res/k iv /ess ec/d /sy wA-Swi rebuh h /h 'rk A' dn ey/da:Si ~), ~,sn& mA~, um f< femish 16 weresse. 7% nuexea/ kr, pad /e w/,1 2 % ne<#" b fx fri;o dseder

1. se, sua onre edSpreied pi/8 /w N

0 $0I5 k f ff llfftMMl $ Shwt ggc,Ye $did W .j> 5,--cw.hwth&)"2 "f" W ~ ? .; I 7 g ~g).gV!- Rc.S .).. A )

s G

_) ,,,_ he,.J [.#-

b THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN W. MccoRMACK STATE OFFICE BUILDING oNE ASHBURToN Pt. ACE, BOSTON 02108-1698 JAMES M.SHANNoN ATTORNEY GENERAL l July 12, 1989 BY FAX ERE.EDOM OF INFORMATION f a.ACT REQUIST Donnie H. Grimsley, Director "'d f-f Division of Rules and Records f Of fice of Ada: ministration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h ~ 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland

Dear Mr. Grimsley:

pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. $552, and 10 C.F.R. $9.1 el seg., the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office (" MAG") requests that you produce to MAG the following documents, including, but not limited to, records as defined in 10 C.F.R. 59.13 (" Documents"), concerning low power testing for the Seabrook Nuclear power Plant. All requested documents within the possession or control of NRC, or its agents or contractors, should be produced, whether generated by NRC,-Applicants, their agents or contractors, or otherwise. please note this FOIA Request (Request #24) seeks all documents that refer or relate to the shutdown of the Seabrook Reactor on June 22, 1989, or the cessation or suspension of low power operation. This did not appear in our prior FOIA Fequest dated June 5, 1989. 1. All documents identified or referred to by NRC Staff Counsel Elaine Chan at Seabrook Transcript pages 23586 through l 23591,1/ including, but not limited to: l l a) pre-low power inspection report; b) readiness assessment team report; c) low power inspection report; 1/ A copy of these pages is attached as Exhibit A. t'l49ocf/7tr[q6

a t' I 'o Donnie H. Grimsley, Director July 12, 1989 Page 2 d) low power team report; e) resident inspector inspection report; f) Region 1 inspectors' inspection. reports; g) 94.300 letter from regional director to NRC including any assessment on readiness for full power and the NRC Staff's recommendations; h) all documents that identify or refer to any problem arising during low power testing; i) 'all computer programs used or relied upon to conduct or evaluate low power testing including special computer programs to track core exposure. 2. For each document identified by Staff Counsel Chan in the prior request #1, produce all supporting documents reviewed or relied upon by NRC, including logs and evaluation notes, to prepare each such document. 3. All documents reflecting test protocols for low power testing. 4.- All documents reflecting: (a) the process to determine core exposure during low power testing program (LPTP); (b) data obtained through.this process; (c) the process computer program to record IR detector currents and the time between program executions and to evaluate core exposure; (d) all other documents identified in the enclosure L to letter of Victor Nerses to Edward A.

Brown, May.21, 1989.2/

5. All instructions, documents, evaluation criteria, and information concerning the LPTP given to federal evaluators, controllers, and observers prior to and/or during the Low Power Testing Program. This includes instructions, documents, and information provided at training sessions and/or meetings. / gcogyoftheletterandenclosureisattachedas

Donnie H. Grimsley, Director July 12, 1989 Page 3 6. All communications or other documents concerning the scope, methodology or implementation of the LPTP, and the specific tests or procedures to be performed or actually performed. 7. All documents and information concerning the Lower power Testing program or concerning roles, functions, duties, or events expected to occur during the LPTP that were provided by the NRC, or Applicants to federal evaluators, simulators, controllers, observers, or NRC personnel, or any other persons at any time prior to the exercise. 8. All logs generated or maintained by each and every evaluator, controller, or observer, including NRC or Applicants, during or subsequent to the LPTP, including all appendices, comments, and summaries which are a part thereof. 9. All audio, video or other electronic recordings, or transcripts of recordings, of conversations involving NRC or Applicants' personnel concerning the LPTP. 10. All documents describing or pertaining to discussions or communications on the LPTP, and occurring before, during, and after the LPTP between or among NRC evaluators, controllers, and observers; NHY controllers and evaluators, or between NhC and Applicants' personnel. 11. All photographs of events occurring during the LPTP. 12. All reproductions of " status boards" as they existed throughout the LPTP. 13. All time lines prepared by participants, evaluators, -i 1 controllers, or observers of any events occurring during the l LPTP. I 14. All charts, graphs, maps, diagrams, drawings, or physical evidence pertaining to events which occurred during the LPTP. j l 15. Any and all documents which describe the purpose of l the LPTP, or the NRC evaluation process of the LPTP. I 16. All summaries, notes, logs, or other documents which l reflect the observations and other matters that took place at I any meeting (s) with the NRC or Applicants evaluators, l controllers, and observers concerning the LPTP, regardless of meeting date. I l lL___--_--._____

Donnie H. Grimsley, Director ~ July 12, 1989 -Page 4 17. All. documents containing factual or evaluative information, prepared during or after the LPTP, by NRC or Applicants' participants, evaluators, contrc'llers, or observers. 18. All other information, communications, or documents provided to federal evaluators after the LPTP to be used in developing their evaluations or reports. 19. All other documents, summaries, notes, logs, time l lines, evaluations, comments, critiques, or reports concerning the LPTP and prepared after the LPTP by federal or Applicants' participants, evaluators, controllers, or observers. 20. All documents, including minutes, transcripts, summaries, or notes, concerning any meetings at which NRC or ' Applicants' evaluations, critiques, or comments on the LpTP were discussed. 21. All correspondence, memoranda, or other records of communications between NRC personnel or between NRC and Applicants about drafts of documents or records on the LpTP. 22. All correspondence, memoranda, or other documents regarding the preparation and/or content of the low power testing program. 23. For each document previously requested herein, produce all drafts of each document. 24. All notes, logs, memoranda, records, reports, manuals or other documents that refer or relate to the shutdown of the Seabrook Reactor on June 22, 1989 or the suspension of low power testing or operation, including, but not limited to: a) all operator manuals or other documents that relate to procedures, directives, or management policies for the start up or shut down of the reactor; b) all documents that identify, describe or relate to the responsibilities or authority of personnel involved in the start up or shut down of the reactor, including those involved in low power testing or the shut down of the reactor on June 22, 1989; c) all documents that identify or describe the steam valve involved in the June 22, 1989 shutdown;

Donnie'H. Grimsley, Director July 12, 1989 page 5 d) all documents that describe or refer to the conduct of the natural circulation start up test, as performed at Seabrook Station as part of low power testing; e) all documents that identify the individuals present in the control room at the time of plant shutdown on June 22, 1989, or their roles, responsibilities, actions, or functions in low power testing or the shutdown; f) all documents that refer or contain the statements, comments, or opinions concerning low power testing or the shutdown, of the individuals identified in Request 24(e); g) all documents that relate or refer to George S. Thomas, and his resignation or removal as vice . president in charge of plant operations; h) all records, reports, memoranda or other documents that refer or relate to the reactor shutdown on June 22, 1989, the facts and circumstances surrounding this event, or opinions or conclusions as to the causes of this event; i) all records, reports, memoranda or other documents that refer or relate to the cessation or suspension of low power testing; j) all documents that refer or relate to confirmatory action letter (CAL) 89-11, or to any statements or actions undertaken by Applicants or NRC on the issues raised in the CAL (a copy of the CAL is attached); k) all documents generated on or after June 1, 1988 that refer or relate to events or problems involving plant personnel, plant operation, or plant valve systems, whether related to low power testing or otherwise; 1) for each document identified in response to Request 24, provide all drafts of each document; and m) for each document identified in response to Request 24, provide all supporting documents relied upon in the preparation of each document.

Donnie H. Grimsley, Director July 12, 1989 Page 6 If,-for any' reason, you withhold any document' or part thereof, please describe the material that is withheld, by title, date, author, and summary of content, and explain your reasons for. believing it is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.- In addition, please explain why the public interest does not. require disclosure. Please notify me of the copying and mailing costs for-production. I look forward to receiving.your response within ten.(10) working days, as provided in the Act. Si cerely, N O ' Matthew Brock Assistant Attorney General' Nuclear Safety Unit (617) 727-2200 MB/ld Enclosures cc: Edwin Reis Deputy Assistant General Counsel Reactor License Branch 1549n r lL -- - --

EXHIBIT A 23586

1 Secondly, the Board 'aas already referred to the 2

fact the regulation itself restricts the discovery to 3 contentions in an' operating license proceeding to' maid ds 4 relevant to contentions that have been admitted. 5 More importantly, what we really heard here is the: 6 old argument that I'm entitled to discovery to frame my I 7 contentions.. That argument has.been made to the Commission i 8 since at least 1973. It was first turned down in Nortan 9 States Power Company, ALAB-107, 6 AEC 188. Reconsideration 10 denied, ALAB-110, 6 AEC 247.. Affirmed CLI 73-12,- 6 AEC, 11 241. 12 It was turned down again in 1974 in Wisconsin 13 Electric' Company, Koshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, 14 CLI 74-45, 8 AEC, 928, 1974. 15 The doctrine th'at you do not have discovery to 16 bring your contentions was upheld jurisdictionally in BPI 17 versus AEC, 502 f.2nd 424, 428-29 D.C. Circuit 1974. 18 That whole second argument you heard has been made 19 to the Appeal Board, the Commission, and the Courts and it 20 has lost every time. That's all I have to say. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Chan? 22 MS. CHAN: I think Mr. Dignan has probably covered 23 the field on the lack of rights of discovery for the purpose 24 of framing contentions. 25 However, specifically I would like to address tho' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

~ b V e 23587 1 ~ Mass AG's argument that they need this observational status. s 2 to make their hearing right meaningful. 9p?th.y.. m ' 3 The NRC documents, the entire. low power ~ testing 4-procedure, at the present time now there is a'prolow-power 5 inspection going. on and that will' produce ' a readiness 6 assessment team report. 7. Following the completion of that there is a low-8 power inspection which results in a lotr-power team report 9 plus the resident inspector produces an inspection. report. 10 And Region 1 inspectors also produce an inspection report. 11 Excuse me, the regional inspectora produce more 12 than one' inspection report'on the low power testing. 13 All that information is put together and released 14 in the form of a 94.300 letter which is from the regional 15 director to Murley of the NRC. And this contains an 16 assessment on readiness for full power and the NRC Staff's 17 recommendation. 18 If any problem arose during the low power testing 19 it would be documented in one of these NRC inspection i 20 reports. 21 Since low-power testing must be successfully 22 conducted prior to full-power operation, I don't think that 23 the Mass AG is being deprived of any information. 24 The availability'of all these various reports, the 25 prelow power report; the low power report by the low-power Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

23588 1 1-team; the inspection reports by the resident inspector and 2 the regional inspectors plus the 94.300 letter make the Mass '3 AG's hearing right meaningful. 4 Massachusetts Attorney General has a right to 5 propose contentions based on this information and seek their 6 admission, and if admitted, litigate those contentions. 7 This is the opportunity afforded the public to litigate the 8 low-power testing. 9 JUDGE SMITH: You are not stating at this time 10 that they do have a right to litigate the low-power testing, 11 are you? 12 H3. CHAN: No, this is -- 13 UUDGE SMITH: They do have the right, is that it? 'This is based on the assumption we made 14 .MS. CHAN: 15 that they'had a right to litigate. And also, that they had 16 some right to observe or obtain information. And this makes 17 this hearing right meaningful because this information is 16 available. 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: Could I just respond to that 20 statement about the documents. 21 Could I have the Board either request, urge, or 22 order the Staff to retain any and all documents generated by 23 the inspectors or anybody else in the control of the Staff, 24 all documents that then become the basis for these various 25 reports. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

7 23589 1 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Traficonte, every time this 2 comes up you are faced with the same problem. 3 'MR.:TRAFICONTE: The jurisdictional problem is'the 4 same even with regar'd to -- 5. JUDGE' SMITH: We have absolutely no administrative 6-authority over the Staff. No supervisory authority over:the 7 Staff. 8 We only have authority over the Staff as a party 9. to a proceeding on issues ~that are given before us. 10 MR. TRAFICONTE: I see. t ' 11' JUDGE' SMITH: In fact, the Commission has made it 12 clear'in other decisions that if we believe that there is 13 r.ome' nonperformance upon the Staff, we are not to order them 14 to performt we are to report the matter up the appellant 15 line. 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: So document retention is not in 17 your jurisdiction. 18 JUDGE SMITH: Absolutely not. 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: I just wanted to indicat'e, and 20 again I am not happy to have to report this the second week 21 in a row, but I would want to seek an interlocutory review 22 and seek directive certification on the portion of the 23 denial, if the Board would officially deny, that portion of 24 the motion granting us some relief as to accese or 25 observational status, and specifically the last request Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 C______=--_---

.-_--n_- 23590 1 having to do with making sure that the documentation that is 2 generated is retained. 3-MS. CHAN: Mr..Traficonte, I:can assure you at-4' this point that I will make sure that the documentation is 5 retained o 6 MR. TRAFICONTE: Would that include the special 7 computer program that has been' written, so that the core 8 exposure.can be tracked as well? 9 MS. CHAN: Well, the information I have as to the 10 reports that I have discussed'on the record, and as to that' 11' information.I-will assure you and the' Board that those 12 documents will be retained. As to other documents I'm not 13 aware of, I can't make that same anarance. 14 But as to the ones that I have mentioned on the 15 record, all documentation pertaining to those will' be 16

retained, L

17' JUDGE SMITH: The portion of your motion to be 18 granted observation opportunities during the power 19 ascendancy is denied. s 20 Your motion that we certify the matter is being 21 denied. 22 We will, however, provide for the most rapid 23 transmission of the transcript of this morning's arguments 24 and rulings to headquarters as we can possibly get them. 25 MR. TRAFICONTE: Thank you, Your Honor. Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888

i' 23591 t. 1 JUDGE SMITH:- It will be down in the hands of my. 2 secretary for further transmission depending'upon what you 3 need. 4 Off the record. 5 (The Board confers.) 6 JUDGE SMITH: We're off the record here. 7 (Discussion off the ' record.) 8 9 10 11 12-13~ 14 15 17 18-19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

1 3 tse'rse tTAtts j i wcun m aA m yecam wow r....') Mee0N I m sannom me a a r u s a. m m v m a,seen N ' Ocekets No.: 50-443 CAL No.: 49-1) Public Service of New Hampshire (P$NH) ATTN: Mr. Edward A. Brewn. President and Chief Executive Officer New Hampshire Yankte Division Post Offics Box 300 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Gentler.en: e $vbject: CONFIRPRTORY ACTION LETTER (CAL) 49-11 ] This letter confirms our understanding of those actions you intend to take in response to the reactor car.uAl trip which occurred on June 22, 1989 during the performance of the natural circulation startup test. Those actions were discussed during a June 23, 1989 phone conversation between yourssif and Mr. Thomas T. Martie, Deputy Regional Administrator, NRC Region 1. Specifically, wt understand that, prior to startup of the unit, PSNH will: (1) Complete and document the results of the post-trip revitw process associated with the June 22, 1989 event; (2) Establish those short-term corrective acticas to be cospleted prior to restaat of the un't to address the specific deficiencies identif f ed during your post-trip rev'aw; (3) Determine these longer ters corrective actions and their respective schedules, to address any potentially broeder implications associated with the specific deficiencies identified as a result of i your review; and, (a) Review the results of itens (1), (2) and (3), above, with the NRC staff. Ve further understand that the agreement of the Aeg16nal Administrator, Region 1, would be obtaired prior to restart of the unit. I N5Mk3[h)'

. _ _ _ gg, ;...., e ublic Service of New Mapshire t If, your ur. der temediately. standing diffgre from that wt forth above, p e .Sincerel, William T. Russell Regional Aastnistrator (C: J. C, Duffett, President and Chief Executive Offi T. C. Fef eobtus t Vice President Eigineert J. M. Peschel, Re,gulatory Se D. E. Moody, Station Maeager.rvices Manager,ag, Ltcens. P cer NNY NHY P. W. Agnet, Jr., Assistant $9erstary of Publi Commonwealth of Massachusetts c $4fety. Public Document Acos (PCR ' Local Pubite Document Room) (LPOR)Wuclear NRC Restdant inspector State of New Hampshire Commonwealth of Massachusetts Seabroek Hearing Service (tst E e O

/ 'h, UNTE skTES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a I wassiNovow. o. c. 20ssa s ,J %,',,,,/ May 21, 1989 Docket No. 50-443 Mr. Edward A. Brown President & Chief Executive Officer New Hampshire Yankee' Division Public Service Company of New Hampshire Post Office Box 300 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874

SUBJECT:

SEABROOK LOW POWER PHYSICS TESTS In accordance with the Comission Order, CLI-88-10 dated December 21.-1989, for any low power testing ifcense that may be issued for Seabrook Unit 1, the ifcense will be conditioned to allow operation at power levels not in excess of five percent and shall permit no more than 0.75 effective full power hours (EFPH) of operation. In consideration that such a license may be issued, we have reviewed the manner in which your staff intends to perform low power physics tests and remain within the ifcense restriction of 0.75 EFFH and 55 maximum power level. The enclosure presents a summary of our understanding of how the two restrictions are expected to be met. We find the approach to be satisfactory. Sincerely, Ad-Victor Merses, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects 1/II

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/o enclosure: See next page hY } a

i l l Enclosure . Seabrook 5f/0.75 EFFH Operation GENERAL INFORMATION 0.75 effective full power hours (EFPH) operation for Seabrook is equiva-1ent to 0.75 x 3411 N x 1 hour = 2558 W -hr. At 5% power (or 170.6 W ), t t g Seabrook could operate continuously for 15 hours. The tests to be conducted are primarily low power physics tests and a natural circulation test. The majority of the low power physics tests are conducted in the zero power test range (approximately.01% power). Low power flux mapping will be conducted at approximately 15 power and the natural circulation test will be conducted at approximately 3% power. The process that will be used to determine core exposure during the low power test program will be identical to that used to determine core exposure during normal plant operation,, However, instead of using a secondary calorimetric to calibrate (normalize) the power range nuclear instruments the core AT power will be used to calibrate (normalize) the intermediate range (IR) nuclear instruments. This calibration will be based on the full power core temperature rise (core A T). One of the first evolutions to be perforned in the low power test program will be toincreasereactorpowerto3%(basedoncoreAT)andrecordtheIR detector currents. From the data obtained by this evolution, the normal-ization constants for each intermediate range detector (amps /5 power) will.be determined. A process computer program has been written to record the IR detector currents and the time between program executions. The program then utilizes this data along with the IR detector normalization constants to calculate core exposure. The EFpH will be the sum of the test power levels times the test time and this sum will be maintained below 2558 Mw -hr. t

2-SPECIFIC INFORMATION Reactor power will be measured using the core temperature rise normalized to the full power core temperature rise (commonly referred to as AT power). The IR detector outputs will then be normalized to the measured I core t.T power. It will be necessary to calibrate (normalize) the IR detectors to trace core exposure because most of the low power testing is conducted in the zero power test range where core AT is O'T but the IR cetectors are producing a current equivalent to approximately.01% power. The uncertainties associated with the measurement of cora AT are about the same magnitude as the measurement itself. To offset this, a full power core AT of 57.0'F is used to determine the IR detector normalization constants. A full power core N of 57.0*F is conservative with respect to the expected full power value of 59.4*F. The process of normalizing the IR detector output to match core 4T power also normalizes out any uncertainties associated with the IR detector outputs. Thus, the IR detector outputs simply inherit the error associated with the core AT l measurements which hcs already been accounted for. All instruments necessary to monitor core exposure are calibrated with the exception of the IR detector output normalization. IR detector norr.alization will be performed during normal plant startup regardless of any core exposure limitations. There is no specific plan or schedule for expanding the.75 EFPH. The only plan that exists is the low power test sequence which, if goes as planned and without any unforeseen test or equipment difficulties, should be completed within the allotted exposure limit. The tests are expected to be completed in about ten days. A special computer program has been written for the main plant computer to calculate and track core exposure. An administrative procedure will be written to ensure that the exposure Ifmit will not be exceeded and to document core exposure. The administrative procedure that tracks and docunents core exposure will contain a section on manual tracking of core exposure if the plant computer is unavailable. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.}}