ML17254A373

Informs of Proposed Deletion of Requirement to Install Second Automatic Containment Isolation Valve in Seal Return Line,Per Review of SEP Topic VI-4, Containment Isolation Valves (Mechanical), Due to Costs Involved

ML17254A373
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	05/15/1985
From:	Kober R ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
To:	Zwolinski J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RTR-NUREG-0821, RTR-NUREG-821, TASK-06-04, TASK-6-4, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8505210360
Download: ML17254A373 (4)

Text

REGULATORY 'RMATION DISTRIBUTION SYS A (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR:8505210360 DOC ~ DATEo 85/05/15 NOTARIZED'O DOCKET ¹ 6ACIL:50 244 Robert Emmet Ginna Nuclear Planti Unit 1'i Rochester:

G 05000244 AUTH INANE AUTHOR AFFILIATION KOBKRgR ~ li ~

Rochester Gas 8 Electric Corp, REC IP, NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION ZNOLINSKIid,A~

Operating, Reactors Branch 5

SUBJECT!'nforms of proposed deletion of requirment to install second automatic containment isolation valve in seal return'ineiper review of SEP Topic VI 4i "Containment.Isolation Valves (mechanical)i" due to costs

involved, DISTRIBUTION CODE:

A035D

'COPIES RECEIVED:LTR "ENCL SIZE'.

1, o

TITLE:

OR Submittal:

SEP Topic NOTES:NRR/DL/SEP

1cy, OL 09/19/69 O5OO0244 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME.

NRR ORB5 BC 01 INTERNAL: ACRS 14 NRR/DL/ORAB 11 NRR/Dl /TAPMG N /.

4 SB G FIL' 04 COPIES LTTR ENCL 3

RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME ADM/LFMB NRR/DL/SEPB NRR/DS I/AEB NRR/DSI/CSB RGN1 COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

12'3 1

07 1

1 EXTERNAL! LPDR NOTES:

03<

NRC PDR 02*

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REaUIRED:

LTTR 23 ENCL

f I

-'* J gw w t,wtl I t

it

~",w

~

4.;

~>rIag t

>,l Vt V g fww I

~ wI" "0 f I

'I }"'I' e

ill'l t 3 I

r 'f 1<<9 w

fW t

w V

w

~

~

~ wwtall f

.".I I IC'I.)

I

'l I.

I Il-tgrw, I

<<f

'ftw1wtVww9 fII" 'I II),tgf f wl'"

IIwI I

>fwgc.

"vf PY IIwY fwOI 1t ~ I(>> ~ f fwI wV wfI

~ I'tv

."yf $ I Aft f Jfz I'g'ww$

JI1il w'vfg>wA< I glv II vw I f ttv" I I, )I)

,I aylflvwtCf I'SPA w

w 1 VIw'(lf Jf>tf w

I fW "

wt fwt I I

'I wuwq

'wtr}

)

, rt gI'I'Iww

)Af I yf s I

~ 4 ww f tl,w "Ilgwu III J<f V t' IIwl~

I w Tell I

<< II

< l V If I,

s VV, VIV J wt, tw w-t gJ I'I g >II I

','v I l.a I'I> V I

wl tV1 1

CI

'I

< zpp muzzle StijZg7ru ZSiZZiiZVt zeus zivvzz ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION o 89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.K 14649-0001 ROGER W. KOBER VKE PRESIDENT ELECTRIC &STEAM PRODUCTION May 15K 1985 TELEPHONE AREA coot Tls 546-2700 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:

Mr. John A. Zwolinskii Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingtoni D.C.

20555

Subject:

NUREG-0821'PSAR Section 4.22.2, Containment Isolation Valves R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-244

Dear Mr. Zwolinski:

During the review of SEP Topic VI-4I "Containment Isolation Valves (Mechanical)"i RGSE had agreed that a second autcmatic containment isolation valve would be installed in the seal return line.

The PRA conducted as part of the Integrated Assessment for Ginna (Appendix D to NUPJK-0821i December 1982)I however, determined that this issue was of low importance in reducing risk because>

as noted in section VI-4-5 of the PRAI which o references WASH-1400, "...the only penetrations which contribute to containment leakage as a release path are those four inches or greater in diameter..."

(The seal return line is 3" in diameter).

Furthermorei in addition to the single containment isolation valve outside containment, the seal return linei including the volume control tanki have a design pressure greater than containment design.

Thusi no potential post-accident leakage would be expected outside containment.

RGSE has just completed an evaluation of the cost and feasibilit of installing this second isolation valve.

The location of the seal return line is in a high radiation area>

which is already heavily congested.

An estimated expense of $250i000 would be required to install the ASME Code Class 2 valveK with a Class lE operatori and associated Class lE safeguards actuation and control circuits. It is also expected that this task would result in significant doses to the installation crewi since the general radiation level is about 30 mr/hri with a dose-rate of up to 250 mr/hr at "hot spots".

Since there is very littler if anyi risk reduction benefit derived from the inclusion of the second valve> and it is not expected that any post-accident leakage could escape through this release path, yet there is significant increase in cost and man-rem

exposure, RGGE proposes to delete the requirement to install this valve.

Ve truly yoursi 85p52lp36 p5ppp2+4 p S5p515 Ii PDR

>9' PD~

P Roger W. Kober

cg

{