ML20235D681
| ML20235D681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Allens Creek |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1978 |
| From: | Moon C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235B454 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-554 NUDOCS 8709250310 | |
| Download: ML20235D681 (6) | |
Text
[p$1Cicy% ( UNITED STATES I,
,y . " 'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 f- .$* ,
n
- f l ..... AUG 311978 Docket No. 50-466 FACILITY: Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 I
APPLICANT: Houston Lighting & Power Company
SUBJECT:
SUM 4ARY OF MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 22, 1978 TO DISCUSS REVIEW ISSUES r_
7 I
Representatives of Houston Lighting & power Company (applicant) met with 1" members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in Bethesda, Maryland :
1 on August 22, 1978, to discuss outstanding issues in the staff's review :f of the reactivated application for a permit to construct Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1. Al{
An attendance list is enclosed.
Significant points discussed during the meeting are suninarized below:
b
- 1. Cooling of Recirculation Pumps
~'
The staff position (Item 211.1) as stated in the enclosures to its letters of February 17, 1978 and July 21, 1978 was that with regard to recirculation pum seal water and cooling lines, the applicant l should provide design modifications (e.g., safety grade cooling 1.id systems, pum trip, or other equivalent protection) acceptable to the staff. The applicant's position was that a decision on design change for Allens Creek should be postponed until after the staff completes its review of a Topical Report to be submitted :Myp by the General Electric Company. The staff noted that there was no established schedule for submission of the Topical Report , , , , ,
and completion of the staff's review, and that in other similar reviews the problem of test requirements tended to preclude an early decision that design modifications would not be necessary. Wl t
f The staff also noted that in other applications the resolution was
- l either to upgrade the component cooling lines tn seismic Category I or to provide a safety grade pump trip system that would actuate on loss of component cooling water. Following the discussion, the applicant's representatives indicated that the PSAR would be i amended to shew a design modification which will likely be a pump trip. ggg g Blay 870925031C 070922 q
_m
\
. /
v " ;
, ., (. 1
'/ AUG 311918 4
^ '
l ;5 +
, {'
\
'i , ,
i V , s
- 2. Main Steam Isolatien Valve leakagei {
The staff's pwition (Item 010.3) 'as st.atof in the' enclosures I to its letter of July 21.il97S' wast that 'the, set point for the l j
flow limiters en the inboird iystem of the ahia steam isolation I
, valve leakage contrei/ systei.n'shculd be aalntained at 11.5 stan'dard
- I cubic fwt per hour Tscfu). The applMant'syosition was that a relatnion of the pcmitted leekage rate wuaid result in,a signif-
' icant redoction it t%occupat1onal-tAdiation uposure over the life <w ,
/ of the plant with or,1y a nomini fncraase in calctir;ted doses for the postulated design buis acciderst. ,
I '
The applicant stated tha.t exphrience from operating' plants indicates (1) 1b000 man . hours 'are required to lap eiet vitives,; '
h*!
O4 (2) the ope at.icas ruult in 40 mn-rw exposure per year, or .
more than 1500 man-rea over thd plant lifetime, (3) as more mdio- f active crud accumulats:2 the exposures are upected to increase, 4
- ,j (4) the leakage of less than 1!.5'scfn is -sufficiently difficult-to achieve that tnbinitial lapping may be unsuccessful and a q ,
ry repeated lapping and testing operational sequence becomes necassary, (5) typically five of eight valves have to be lapped during each refueling, and (6) some non required tests between refueling are unsuccessful.
The staff st'ated that the 11,5 scfh had been long established in a
~
standard technical specification without indicat' ions by licensees of operating reactors tsat the s equirement"Jas particularly difficult to meet. In acknowledging this potential desirability of reducing actual occupational doses in return for higher calculated accident 4H doses, the staff indicated that customizing leakage rates for each #
plant would be contrary to the trend toward standard technical ;
specifications.
In discussing accident dose calculations, the staff noted that values in the Safety Evaluation kieport did not include the effects of MSIV leakage. The lower valuet calculated by the applicant I
/
accounted for such leakage but winh a containaient bypass leakage of 3.9 percent (of total centainmont leakage) instead of 4.7%. "
The staff agreed to determine whether the lower bypass leakage was acceptable for calculating dotes.
It was agreed tiiat the staff could not complete a review of a proposed relaxation within the remittning review time fer Allens Creek. Therefore, the applicant indicated that the design would L____ _ --
,. . (
- AUG 311978 be such that 11.5 scfh could be achieved and that 11.5 scfh would l
be the technical specification comitment for Allens Creek until l
such time as a relaxation is approved generically by the staff. _
l The Ge + *al Electric representative indicated that General Electric l would request a generic review by the staff.
W f Calvin W. Moon, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 i Division of Pmject Management I j
cc: See next page ,
i 4
i
- ~ - -
t
,. t :
AUG 31;1978 no,iston Lighting 6 Power Company - --
ces: -
Mr. P. A. Horn -
Project Manager, ACNG3 _
Houston Lighting & Power Company P. O. Box !700 Houston, Texas 77001 R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
i ME Baker & Botts -
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. '
3 Washington, D. C. 20006 , ,,. ;
tt J. Gregory Copeland, Esq..
Baker & Botts One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Jack R. Newrian, Esq. .
Lowenstein, Neunan, Reis & Axelrad . 3i IJ25 Connecticut Avenue, H. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 hr. Ray Matzelle Project Manager, ACNGS i Ebasco Services, Inc. rg 19 Rector Street ' ~
Mr. Ray Lebre i Project Manager, ACNGS i 0 General Electric l- t 175 Kurtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 ',
Mr. Carlos Byars k
The Houston Chronicle But Texas Avenue L -
l Houston, Texas 77002 Troy Webb, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O. Cox 12548 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711
.. (
AUG 311978 MEETING HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER AUGUST 22,1978- ATTENDEES, Calvin W. Moon, NRC -
J. R. Sumpter, HL&P L. D. Richards. HL&P R. M. Pifferetti, GE E. J. Bore 11a, EBASCO e--
Guy Martin, Jr. , EBASCO ?
Bill Mills, NRC Jerry Mazetis, NRC f Larry W. Bell, NRC l-Leonard Soffer NRC ',gjjI Frank C. Skopec, NRC Jared S. Wermiel, NRC !"i Donald C. Fischer, NRC l ,j Jack Nehemias, NRC il t
ji i
s$
+
i 4
l
., l r ,
I.'
AUO O 1 I0II l MEETING
SUMMARY
AlLENS CREEK file NRC'PDR Local PDR ..
TIC NRR Reading LWR-4 Reading E. G. Case R. S. Boyd R. C. DeYoung m3'!
D. B. Vassallo J. Stolt R. Baer - Q1i gg
- 0. Parr ,
+
S. Varga '
.li L. Crocker q D. Crutchfield l4 F. Williams R. J. Mattson D. Muller Cal N on Proj ect Manager ,1 Attorney, ELD MService IE (3)
ACRS (16)
L. Dreher L. Rubenstein N R. Denise
- j. ,
Participants:
', o Bill Mills , :.
JerryMazetis .si..
Larry Bell tg Leonard Soffer yI l Frank C. Skopec Jared S. Wermiel ;
Donald C. Fischer 1 Jack Nehemias 4
0
l l
- % UNITED STATES i
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10el IiiTIE WASHINoTON, D. C. 20066 o AUG 161978 g/ '- ,
MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulati:n I THRU: Roger S. Boyd, Director, Division f Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulati:n ,. w g p q FROM: John F. Stolz, Chief Light Water ilaactors Branch No.1, Division of Project Management, NRR
SUBJECT:
SUiEARY OF MEETING WITH APPLICANTS TO DISCUSS REVIEW SCHEDULE MATTERS At the request of P: . Harold Denton, Director, NRR, a meeting was held in Bethesda, Maryland on August 9,1978 with the group of applicants identi-fied in Enclosure 1. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss review schedule matters and staff resources. This was the second of three such meetings. The first meeting, with a group of applicants consisting largely of those with operating license applications which are currently receiving the highest priority, was held on August 1,1978, and is sumarized in D. B. Vassallo's memorandum to you dated August 4,1978. This second meeting was with another group of applicants, consisting largely of those with operating license applications which are curre :ly receiving somewhat less priority than those of the first group. The third meeting, with yet dnother group of applicants consisting largely of tnose with construction peruit applications, was scheduled for August 10, 1978.
Mr. Denton opened the meeting with some general recurks by stating that these meetings constitute somewhat of an experiment in apprising applicants of review schedule problems and eliciting their collective views on estab-lisning the accuracy of plant construction completi:n and fuel loading dates for operating license applications. Mr. Dent:n explained that the staff's primary interest in these dates is to establish priority of review to meet the staff's consaitment of completing the operating license review by the fuel loading date (i.e., the date constructi:n of the facility has been completed in accordance with the applicatico).
Mr. Denton explained that in order to provide the s aff with realistic construction completion dates, we have utilized the NRC's Caseload Forecast Panel. Tne Forecast Panel, assisted by NRR Project Managers and Inspection and Enforcement Inspectors, has made numerous visits to plant sites to discuss schedular matters with utilities and attemp; to independently arrive at a construction conpletion date. Mr. Dent:1 said that because in many cases there was a disparity between the Fore:ast Panel's projection and that of the utility, he has found some utility concern with the staff's
'iPP
7____
L Harold R. Uenton 2- AUG 10 1978 dttemptl to establish construction completion dates. Many of the utility representatives present indicated some apprehension in having the staff 1
develop.these dates and publish them because there are many other consid-erations' involved in a. utility establishing and trying to adhere to a scheduled fuel load date. Several of the utility representatives present requested that we consider establishing a more viable means for appealing the construction completion dates developed by the Forecast Panel. Mr. Boyd noted that the important consideration was really the establishing of review schedules for the pending OL reviews. He suggested that for those cases in whicn the utility's construction completion date differed from the. staff's review completion date' by more than 4 months, an appeal meeting be held to resolve the difference.
- Mr. Denton. stated that we need information such as that developed by the
' forecast Panel to establish a priority review list since we have to allocate ~
the available staff resources to higher priority reviews. Mr. Denton pointed out that although we anticipate some increase in the size of the staff in Fiscal Year 1980, no significant change is expected in Fiscal Year 1979.
Mr. Denton went on to explain that operating plants have the highest priority, but after that the next highest priority is for operating license reviews with the objective of preventing delay of staff review beyond the scheduled fuel loading date. Copies of the staff's current priority listing for case work (Enclosure 2) were distributed to the participants. Mr. Denton stated that he recognized that this was an early attempt at listing the priorities, but had called this meeting to share with the utilities the difficulties of scheduling reviews and to ask their input or help in establishing a priority listing acceptable to applicants and the staff.
Mr. Denton and other members of the staff present explained how the staff is attempting to use the priority listing. Dr. Mattson explained that for the Division of Systems Safety, he has forecast the resources of each reviewer six months in advance, consistent with the Division of Project Management's priority. He explained how this is broken down to establish how each reviewer spends his or her time on a weekly basis over a six-month period.
After this, Mr. Denton turned to the matter of resolving safety issues which appear to consistently recur on current operating license reviews and seem to be the pace-setting items in completing the review in time for fuel loading. Mr. Denton explained that there are a number of these common problems which seem to be delaying operating license reviews and suggested that the applicants singly or collectively put more effort into resolving these matters. Some of the issues which were used as examples are environ-mental qualification of safety equipment, asymmetric loads and computer protection systems. Tne staff explained that around 1975. DSS needed about 500 man days to review an operating license application. Since the issuance I
t Harold R. Denton Aug i c 1978 of tne Standard Review Plan, and with the increased involvement of the public, dnd the experience from a growing number of operating plants, DSS review now l requires about 1700 man days. Dr. Mattson explained, however, that for Arkansas Unit 2, his staff review required 2400 man days, the main reason i being the complexity of the core protection calculator system review. l Mr. Denton explained that the staff could just not afford to continue to l put this heavy involvement in one review area. Mr. Denton suggested that (
applicants can help in reducing this effort by improving the timeliness of their input to the staff and assuring that it is complete and responsive.
He also suggested, as an example, that applicants could help in reducing the staff's equipment qualification audit effort by performing their own independent audit prior to submittal for staff review to further assure that the equipment has been properly qualified.
Mr. Denton and other members of the stnff present pointed out that reviewing generic problems common to a number of applications, such as is being done for the Mark 11 containment, helps reduce our review effort considerably.
They urged the utility representatives to consider other areas to which this approach might be applied and as further reliance on our recent reviews of similar plants or reviewing all or significant portions of similar plants concurrently.
Mr. Denton pointed out that the first group of applicants, which also con-sisted largely of those with operating license applications, had generally agreed that scheduled fuel load dates should be retained as the primary basis for establishing priorities. Mr. Denton then suggested that the in-dustry participants discuss amongst themselves how they might assist in establishing review priorities or other means for improving the licensing process. Several utility representatives indicated that they had reviewed the recommendations made by the first group of applicants, which were dis-tributed to the participants as part of the summary of the first meeting, and recomended their adoption. There appeared to be general agreement among the utility representatives present that the group adopt these recommendations as well. The recommendations are as follows:
- 1. NRR has the responsibility to industry to review applications to meet utilities' fuel load dates and the responsibility to 1 apply NRR resources to accomplish this.
- 2. Applicants have the obligation to maintain the most realistic schedule information to the NRR.
- 3. NRR should give applicants the schedules for its review, report progress against those schedules and propose corrective actions.
Harold R. Denton AUG ' G 1978
- 4. Utilities request the NRR to furnish a list of specific areas where the utilities could aid the ER in improving and shortening the licensing process.
- 5. Applicants will schedule individual meetings with tk Directors of DPM and DSS (Roger Boyd and Roger Mattson) to review the status of their plant licensing review, problem areas and solutions to the problems.
Mr. Denton stated that he appreciated these views. Further, he stated that the participants might wish to reflect on this further and later submit written connents. Mr. Denton indicated that we would await the views of all three groups of applicants before attempting to establish any different method for setting review priorities. He further indicated that we expect to issue a revised priority list in September and to update the list at, possibly three-month intervals.
Mr. Denton indicated that we are considering making the Blue Book available to the public, although some modifications might have to be made to it to make it more understandable. The group of utility representatives present generally agreed that this would be very helpful. Several of the utility representatives present requested that in addition to the Blue Book schedules, we also make available our current review priority list indicating for each plant on the list some measure of the staff effort being expended on the review.
Mr. venton also encouraged utility management meetings with the staff management, particularly during the latter cc,urse of a review, to resolve major outstanding review issues. Through past experience, the staff has found this to be a very effective mechanism.
Both the staff and utility representatives seemed to think that this was a productive discussion.
O. r n
/ ,
n F. Stolz, Chief ht Water Reactor / Branch No.1 ivision of Project Management Enclosures';
- 1. Attendance List
- 2. Staff's Current Priority listing for Case Work i- cc w/ enclosures:
Attendees f
l l 1
_ o
3 ENCLOSURE 1 UTILITY MEETING WITH H. DENTON ON SCHEDULING AUGUST 9, 1978 NRC
- H.- Denton R. Boyd R. Mattson R. DeYoung J. Stolz C. Thomas UTILITIES H. T. Babb South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
Ruble A. Thomas Southern Company Services Alan R. Barton Alabama Power Co.
E. H. Crews, Jr. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
H. C. Schmidt Texas Utilities L. F. Fikar Texas Utilities Nicholas S. Reynolds DeBevoise & Libennan R. G. Cockrell WPPSS J. C. Saldarin Ebasco Services Thomas J. Raney Ebasco Services Robert Prieto Gibbs & Hill Sol Burstein Wisconsin Electric Del Leppke Fluor Pioneer Tom Roell Fluor Pioneer Wm. A. Williams , Jr. South Carolina Public Service Authority J. P. McGaughy Mississippi Power & Light Company Larry F. Dale Mississippi Power & Light Company Ed. A. Turner Houston Lighting & Power G. W. Oprea, Jr.
Houston Lighting & Power John Mann Arizona Public Service Co.
Paul P. DeRienzo Gibbs & Hill l
l 1
LNCLO wRL /
i LWR PRIORITY LISTING - CASLW0RK Priorijli Case Not t [yee (
l Davis Besse 1 Operating plants still under Cook 2 cognizance of 1.WR.
North Anna 1 l
, THI-2 Hatch-2 2 ANO-2 OL 3 Diablo Canyon 1&2 SER Supplement 4 McGuire Hearing 5 Shoreham SER ..
6 Zimmer SER f
7 Sequoyah SER I
8 Salem 2 SER 9 San Or.sfre 263 SER 10 Midland Q2 11 Allens Creek SER ,
12 New England 182 ACRS l
13 RESAR-414 ACRS 14 Davis Besse 2&3 ACRS Erie 182 15 ACRS 16 LaSalle 02 17 Watts Bar Q2 18 Suniner Q2 .
19 , Femi-2 Q1 20 SWESSAR/BSAR-205 SER 21 BOPSSAR Rev. Q1 22 Farley 2 N/S 23 Palo Verde 4&5 N/S 24 GIBBSAR Q1 ,
25 Haven N/S 26 WPPSS 2 N/S 27 Susquehanna 1&2 N/S 28 Grand Gulf 182 N/S 29 South Texas l&2 N/S 30 Comanche Peak N/S 31 Bellefonte N/S 32 ESSAR N/S
~
33 GAISSAR N/S 34 AGS Hold .
In addition, the following plants are in hearing with limited issues.
Required work on these cases will necessarily be of high priority but should be very limited in scope.
Pebble Springs 182 Skagit Black Fox 1&2
- Yellow Creek Greene County FNP -
~ .
MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION No I
\
h tral Files fd 46 @ 7 J.D.KnightRoss l C NRC PDR R. Tedesco LDCAL PDRs of Utilities R. Bosnak KRR Readin9 involved H. Denton S. Pawlicki E. Case 1. Sibweil R. Boyd K. Kniel j
R. DeYoung T. Novak <
J D. Vassallo Z. Rosztoczy I D. Skovholt W. Butler l- W. Gamill V. Benaroya J. Stolz Chief, ICSB- t l
R. Baer V. Moore O. Parr R. Vollmer
. S. Varga M. Ernst W. Haass F. Rosa R. Houston EP Branch Chief
' L. Crocker D. Bunch D. Crutchfield J. Collins j i
F. Williams W. Kreger i R. Mattson G. Lear B. Youngblood D. Muller J. Stepp M. Grossman !
IE (7) L. Hulman ACRS(16) C. Heltemes L. Rubenstein TIC R. Denise Utility Attendees (see list) i C. Thomas S. Kari H. Berkow Foz A 80-55Y
' %s-i :
i
) l l
l E______ ,