ML18030A012
| ML18030A012 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1980 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Curtis N PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010010032 | |
| Download: ML18030A012 (8) | |
Text
S~P 17 %80 99)
Docket Nos.: 50~
and
.50-35f SEC fir. Norman lt. Curtis Vice President - Engineering And Construction Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al1entown, Pennsyl vania 13101
Dear Hr. Curtts:
NRR Rdg NRC/PDR L/PDR DEisenhut RPurple BJYoungblood NRushbrook RStark RNattson SHanauer RTedesco'<Kreger i<Ernst RHartfield OELD Vl'll I I Cl RVollmer DRoss
<lP/~ vn".!!ll OIE'3)
FEltawila bcc:
ACRS (16)
Subject:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units Nos.
1 and 2 - Request for Additional Information As a result of our review of your application for operating licenses for the Susquehanna Steam Electric Plant, we find that we need additional information in the area of Containment Systems.
The specific information required is listed in the Enclosure.
Ifyou desire any discussion or clarifica5)on of the information requested, please contact R. N. Stark, Licensing Project ttanager, (301-492-7238).
Sincerely, Enclousure:
As stated cc:
See next page Rob rt
. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
,g'o (oo lo5$ 2-DL'1 "RLVedesco" DL:.
81
" EJVoungbl od 9/
/80 DL: '$1
'SiStark5s"
. Ml5/80.....
OFFICE SURNAME 9/
/80 DATEP NRC FORM 318 {9.76) NRCM 0240'-
AU.S: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEt 1979 289%69 '
I
,I P
Ot"t!8g"t!%Qg:jQl*t 'sU
Mr. Norman W. Curtis Vice President - Engineering and Construction Pennsylvania Po~r and Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al 1 entown, Pennsyl vani a 18101 CC:
Mr. Earle M. Mead Project Engineering Manager Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Allentown, Pennsyl vania 18101 Jay Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts 8
Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. William E. Barberich, Nuclear Licensing'roup Supervisor Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al 1 entown, Pennsyl vania 18101 Edward M. Nagel, Esquire General Counsel and Secretary Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al 1 entown, Pennsyl vani a 18101 Bryan Snapp, Esq.
Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company 2 North Ninth Street Al 1 entown, Pennsyl vani a 18101 Robert M. Ga'llo Resident Inspector P. 0.
Box 52 Shickshinny, Pennsylvania 18655 Susquehanna Environmental Advocates c/o Gerald Schultz, Esq.
500 South River Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702 John L. Anderson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Union Carbide Corporation Bldg. 3500, P. 0.
Box -X Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Nr.
E. B. Poser Project Enqineer Bechtel Power'-Corporation P, 0.
Box 3965 San Francisco, California
'94119 Matias F. Travieso-Diaz, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts 8
Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Co-Director Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power 433 Orlando Avenue State College, PA 16801 Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Resources Commonwealth of Pennsylvania P. 0.
Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Ms. Colleen Marsh Box 538A, RD84 Mountain Top, PA 18707 Mrs. Irene Lemanowicz, Chairperson The Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers P. 0.
Box 377 RD41
- Berwick, PA 18503 Hr. J.
W.
Millard'roject Manager Mail Code 394 General Electric Company 175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125
Containment Systems Branch Request for Additional Information Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units I and 2
Docket Nos. 50-387/388 021.80 The statement is made in response to question 021.51 that operator action (containment
- spray, ADS) will limit suppression chamber pres-sure to 45 psig.
The staff position set forth in Appendix I to Standard Review Plan (SRP) 6.2.1.l.c requires automatic actuation of the spray system.
However, if it is demonstrated by analyses that there is suff'icient time (mi nimum of 30 minutes) between the time the operator becomes aware of the leakage path and the time containment design pressure is reached, manual operator action could be accepted as an alterna-tive to automated spray actuation.
To complete our review of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES),
please provide the fol-lowing information:
a)
Graphically show the containment pressur o'.lowing small steam breaks assuming a bypass leakage path with a A/~Y, =.05 ft and 2
containment spray actuated 30 minutes from the time the sup-pression chamber pressure reaches the 30 psig set point.
The analysis should be based on the assumptions set forth in Appen-dix I to SRP 6.2.1.1.C-b)
Specify the operator action that will be taken and the time to complete the action,,i.e.,
containment spray or ADS) and discuss the consequences of each action.
Modify subsection 6.2.1.1.5.2 of the FSAR to address the specific action to be taken.
c) If the analysis stated in item a,
- above, shows that containment design pressure will be reached, discuss your plan for including automated actuation of the spray system.
d)
The statement is made in subsection 6.2.6.5.1.2 of the FSAR and in the response to g 021.66 that low pressure leak tests are con-ducted during the ILRT.
We find this approach to be unacceptable.
Our position is set forth in Appendix I to SRP 6.2.1.1.C.
021.81 Note 6 in Table 6.2-15 indicates that excess flow check valves out-side containment eliminates the bypass leakage path.
Discuss the ad-visability of using excess flow check valves to perform satisfactor-ily during the entire course of transient.
021.82 The response to question 02L64 is incomplete; discuss whether or not jockey pumps are used to maintain water seal for 30 days.
Discuss if the system is single failure (active) proof.
021.83 The response to question 021.67 is incomplete; provide the analysis requested in item 2 of that question.
021.84 Table 6.2-12, a list of the containment isolation valves, references Figure 6.2-44 for valve configuration.
Some of the valve arrangements on Figure 6.2-44 do not match those presented in Table 6.2-12; e.g.,
penetrations 9A, 244, 245, and 246A do not match the referenced ar-rangement.
In addition, subsection 6.2.4.3.3.5 does not agree with the arrangement of penetrations 23 and 24.
Review Table 6.2-12 for completeness and correctness.
021.85 Provide justification for having a check valve outside the containment as containment isolation for the seismic pump seal water supply lines.
021.86 Arrangement e in Figure 6.2-44 shows that the 2-inch bypass line relies on the 24-inch purge valve line to perform its intended function.
We will require both the 2-i nch and the 24-i nch valves to meet the require-ments set forth in CSB BTP 6-4 or provide another valve arrangement that satisfies GDC 56.
It should be noted that while in modes 1 through 4, purging operations are permitted up to 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year provided that requirements set forth in BTP 6-4 are met.
421.87 With respect to the leakage test program-a)
It is our position that feedwater isolation valves should be Type C tested utilizing air.
b)
RHR shutdown supply and return should be Type C tested utilizing
-air.
c)
ECCS injection valves should be tested utilizing air.
d)
All containment isolation valves should be Type C tested.
Hydro-static testing is acceptable if it can be demonstrated that the water inventory is sufficient to maintain a water seal for at least 30 days following a LOCA.
e)
CRD insert and withdraw line should be vented during Type A test.
021.88 Provide the projected areas used in the calculation of forces on the RPV and supports.
~ ~