ML19220C421
| ML19220C421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1974 |
| From: | Ippolito T US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| To: | Kniel K US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905010263 | |
| Download: ML19220C421 (4) | |
Text
P 7
iCR 7 1974 v o C.,....O.
e % 19 q m
sv s.
Earl Kniel, 2aief, Lip.: L'a t er Peacter s 3:anc.; 2-2. L
- r. 7.,.-i.e n gs,
.u_.,.
,, p 1._n_
y,u v...
n.
,-,.y.
_7 e..: w.,
...........~ ; _....a.1 _.., m.u i _
.v..
.s m
Plant Nana.
?.ree Mile Island Nuclect Station '2 nit 2 Doc'4et :tenber: 50-220 1.icensin, Stace: Acceptance Review cf SM Responsible Branch and Project Manaccr:
L'..?
2-2, 3. W. Washburn Recuested Conaletion Date: M.1rch 3, 197L Technical Zeviev 3 ranch Involved: 21cctrical. Instrunentation ^.
Control Syste s 2:anch Applicant's Respcase Date:
.'IA Jescription of Response: Acccotance Eevi.w cf ?SA2 "aviev Status: Congleta The renorandu::: dated February 14, 1974, frca 3. W. Washburn to the Technical Eeview Assistant Directora, et al. requested corr.cnts en the completaness of the Three Mile Island Suelear Station, Unit FSAR by March 5,1974. The L:?S, Electrical, instruncntation and Control Systans 3 ranch (EISCS) has revieved Secticus 1.0, 3.11.
5.8,
- 7. ') and S.0 of tha ?SA2 in accordance with the ec=orandun. ne EISCS 3 ranch also revieved Sections 3.1, 3.10. 6, 9 and 16 of the FS.S.R vhere they have seconfc 7 res;oncibility for rev12..
The FS/.-
vas judged for conpleteness en the basis cf the " Standard For.ct and Contant of Safety An.llysis Report for Nuclear Pcwer ?lants" dated Octcber 1972 (Revision 1).
We have concluded that the applicant has provided a FSA1 suf ficiently conplete to proceed with the detailed revier.
We rece--d the aplicant previde the additional infer = tion listed in the attached evaluation.
k nal Signe y et
.T. A spoe:;,,
Tho: ras A. Ippolito, Chief Electrical, Ins tru=- **
- d ~~
t Control Systens branch Directorate cf Licensi-a
[VaaUatiea fGC / O 26 __.)->
0C108370 n
OFFIC E P
_ _,,,I',,L8',_;,,,._,
e..
o s u = = c s. a >
oate
- Foras AIC.fl4 i Rev. S$ 3 ) AICM 0:40
- o C**
'e
- '**s*
sas ae.
f '. J <-
Q7 U.
iL
- .arl .niel
./,17 ~
- 271 CC '4 / Q enO l '.
'.1 l*~.. 'J.3 S O,
L..,.,
n.
s
..Ca C T.C., -.. ;.,.
u s.
CC V/dnCI-5. 'I:nauer.
',.J.
w
. v.
....a..c.
- 1. 3a71, L: - ' "
L:FS 5. '.'a r.,,'a, m
,L s
..s RS Ns T2 Tech Coor 'inators
- 3. ',iac hb urn, L : L'2. 2-2 e.
u_ __n_., cr.....i e CS o
L. Licintraub, L:~ISCS DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Files L Rdg EIC Rdg VStello ELeins
., q r._..
m.
~
') L eJv J//.
- r I
L:EIC L: g.IG,._[.-
E
.. p-C,...
.. 7..
...p.;
. f L
L:.W q..
f, 4.,
-.Mi.l. le -.. T. Pp~ho..l. f._to..
Laeintraub:db C
W
-. S tello 3-6-74 3-
-74 3- /
-74 3 [ 74 e.f
Acceptance Review Report Three Mile Island Unit 2FS[R I.
Soecific Sections Reviewed The following sections of the FSAR were reviewed for co=pleteness on the basis of the " Standard For=at and Content of Safety Analysis Report for Nuclear Power Plants" dated October 1972 (Revision 1).
- 1. 0 3.11 7.0 16.0*
~
3.l*
5.6 8.0 3.10*
6.0*
9.0*
- Sections of secondary responsibility of EISCS 3 ranch.
II.
Assess =ent of the Cocoleteness of Areas Reviewed The areas reviewed are esti=ated to be 80-90% complete.
III.
Identification of Deficiencies 1.1 Ine pnysical plan layout for the upper fleors of the Contr:1 Service 3uilding is not provided in the FSAR (See Figure 1.2-3) and is required for our review.
In addition, both Figures 1.2-13 and 1.2-19 show the same elevation section for this building but have slightly different features. Provide the correct figures for this building.
3.1 Section 3.11 states that "this section will be completed and incorporated as an amend ent during the first quarter of 1974".
The infor ation in this section is required for our review and its o=ission will not allow our review to be cc=pleted.
- However, the infor=ation provided in the other sections (Section 7.0 and 8.0) is sufficiently co=plete to allow our review to start, and receipt of the Section 3.11 =aterial according to the pro =ised delivery schedule should cause no =ajor proble= in this regard.
7.1 a) It appears fro: our examination of the FSAR diagra=s that wiring and cable interconnection drawings will be required to assist in our review and in our independent evaluation of your co=pliance with the separation criteria. We =ust be able to verify your i=plementation of the physical separation criteria for protective systems, co=ponents and penetrations in the plant. The " functional" drawings provided in the FSAR are inadequate for this purpose. Provide the necessary wiring and cable interconnection drawings.
/ (,
UJ<
?
b) In the same regard, provide the following:
- 1) a tsbulation showing cross-ref erencing between the electrical instru=entation and control figure nu=bers and the referenced drawings si=ilar to that given in Section 1.7 for the P&I drawings.
2)
A. tabulation by syste= of or specific references in the text to the individual drawings in Sections 7A and 73.
IV.
Cenclusions and Recorrendations It is concluded that the Electrical, Instru=entation and Control Syste=s sections are presented with acceptable ec=pleteness.
It is therefore reco== ended that the FSAR be accepted for review, subject to the co==ents as noted in Ita= III above.
V.
. Identification of Significant Review Are'.s 1.
Shared syste=s between Units 1 and 2.
2.
Trip delay de 7 ices in c'.rcuit breaker: for Ingi=ecred Safety Systcns.
3.
RER and Auxiliary Feedwater syste= initiation and control.
4.
Stea= line isolation.
5.
Seismic Qualification.
e h
/ t.
UUv
-