ML14190A363
| ML14190A363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1979 |
| From: | Lainas G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Schwencer A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911190251 | |
| Download: ML14190A363 (3) | |
Text
NOV 2 11979'"
Central Files
- PSB RDG MEMORANDUM FOR:
A. Schwencer, 'Chief Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors-FROM:
G. Lainas;. Chief Plant Systems Branch Division of Operating Reactors
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - CONTAINMENT PURGE SYSTEM - H. B. ROBINSON PLANT, UNIT 2 (TAC 08994)
REFERENC,'
I. Letter to-A. Schwencer, from E. Utley, "Containment Purging During Normal Plant Operation," dated December 29, 1978
- 2. Letter to A. Schwencer, from E. Utley, "Containment Purging During Normal Plant Operation," dated January 19, 1979
- 3. Letter to A. Schwencer, from E. Utley, "Containment Purging During' Normal Plant Operation,", dated Mayr, 1979
- 4. Letter to A Schwencer, from E. Utley, "Containment Purging During Normal Plant Operation,".dated July 31, 1979 5.' Letter to A. Schwencer, from E..Utley; "Containment Purging During Normal Plant Operation," dated October 1, 1979 Plant Name:
H.. B. Robinson Plant, Unit 2 Docket No.:
50-261 Project Manager:. D. Neighbors Review Status: Awaiting Information With regard to the containment purge and vent system at H. B Robinson Plant, Unit 2, the licensee plans to justify unlimited purging (Reference 2).
The Plant Systems Branch, Section B,.
11-19O0 DAT.
XiC FORK 318 (9-76)
NRCM 0240 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRiNTING oPPICE 1978 - 265 789
NOV 2.1979 A. Schwencer
- 2 after having reviewed the documents (References 1-5) filed by the licensee, has prepared the enclosed request for additional information.
Section A is continuing their review and will provide questions regarding.the electrical and instrumentation aspects of containment purging in January 1980.
G. Lainas, Chief Plant Systems Branch Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
As stated
Contact:
J. Kerrigan, X28129 cc w/enclosure:
D. Eisenhut B. Grimes W. Gammill L. Nichols G. Lainas E. Reeves E. Adensam D, Neighbors D. Tondi D. Shum J. Kerrigan J. T. Beard G. Knighton V. Noonan" F. Witt J. Zudans R. Scholl DOR:PSB DOR:PSB lDO R
/SL DOR:PSB/ L 0:PSB/BC 01JNAB~
Dh i~i.~
1 EA a~m DTondi a1 nas AT 9
3 0179 it
/A /79.... /. /7 f/ j/79
/
..79 MC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OPPICB: 1978 - 268 - 769
ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR CONTAINMENT PURGE SYSTEM AND CONTAINMENT VENTING SYSTEM FOR H. B. ROBINSON PLANT, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-261
- 1. With regard to the containment purge and venting system, provide the following information:
- a. Discuss the provisions made to ensure that isolation valve closure will not be prevented by debris which could poten tially become entrained in the escaping air and steam.
- b. Discuss the provisions made for testing the availability of the isolation function and the leakage rate of the isolation valves, individually, during reactor operation.
- c. Provide an analysis to demonstrate the acceptability of the provisions made to protect: structures and safety-related equipment; e.g., fans, filters, and ductwork, located beyond the purge system isolation valves against loss of function from the environment created by the escaping air and steam.
- d. For the containment purge isolation valves, specify the diffential pressure across the valve for which the maximum leak rate occurs. Further, provide test results (e.g., from vendor tests of leakage rate versus valve differential pressure) which support the above information.
e.. In your October 1, 1979 submittal, the impact of open purge valves on ECCS performance was evaluated assuming a 2.7 second valve closure time. The valve closure times assumed in these evaluations should be based upon Technical Specifi cation limits.
Therefore, propose a Technical Specification which will limit the time required for the purge and vent isolation valves to close.
This specification should reflect the action to be taken if the valves fail to close in the specified time during normal operability tests. A testing frequency should also be specified for these valves. If necessary, your ECCS evaluation should be resubmitted using this specified closure time and accounting for the time delay between the initiation of a postulated LOCA and the initiation of valve closure.