ML19249D375
| ML19249D375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1979 |
| From: | Jay Collins NRC - TMI-2 OPERATIONS/SUPPORT TASK FORCE |
| To: | Arnold R EUTGENP |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909240429 | |
| Download: ML19249D375 (2) | |
Text
W D
Lk k# RfC M
o UNITED STATES 8
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- . C WASHINGTON, D. C 20555 o
f
%,,,,,*y 5
August 14, 1979 Docket No. 50-320 Robert Arnold, Vice President Iff C[?,
for Generation General Public Utilities
Dear Mr. Arnold:
Having attended the August 8,1979 working meeting with you and B&W regarding the MDHR system and given further consideration to the system. criteria, we believa the following items should be addressed:
1.
Overpressure Protection: The current criteria calls for providing only several gpm relief capacity (~1.6 gpm for the system).
Further work is being done to evaluate the effect of low pressure injection actuation. We agree with this effort. We would also think that consideration should be given to providing relief protection based upon heat input from pressurizer heaters unless they can be removed from service.
Unavailability of heaters may not be desirable.
2.
Electrical power:
It is our understanding that this system will be used extensively in the recovery effort and we, therefore believe th' t redundant power supplies should be provided to the a
system (pump motors). The isolation valves must have redundant power supplies as well.
(We understand that this is the case.)
3.
System seismic design criteria: We understand that, with the exception of the system isolation valves, the MDHR system is not ct;rrently designed to any seismic criteria (OBE or SSE).
The effect of a seismic event when utilizing this system must be considered.
Therefore it is our position that the system be:
qualified for an operating basis earthquake, and a.
b.
evaluated for the effects of a pipe failure caused by a seismic event. Such an evaluation must include:
(1) detection of break / leak (sensitivity of radiation monitors),
(2) action by operator to isolate break.
The results must show that the DHR system (original system) would be available in all respects and the resultant dose levels would be acceptable (10 CFR 100).
7909240 1002 199
~
~
Robert Arnold August 14, 1972 4.
Collection of debris: We believe that the presence of debris in the li1R drop line from the RCS hot leg is a valid concern and concur that action shculd be taken to deal with it.
We would be happy to discuss these areas with you.
Sincerely, 14 John T. Collins, Deputy Director TMI-2 Support cc:
R. Vollmer J. Collins R. Fitzpatrick M. Greenberg A. Ignatonis J. Wermiel S. Newberry N. Dye, CPU B. Elan, GPU J. Herbein, Met-Ed S
..-