ML19249E529

Notifies That FSAR Is Sufficiently Complete for Acceptance. List of Questions Generated During Review Encl

ML19249E529
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	05/23/1978
From:	Bunch D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7910010636
Download: ML19249E529 (5)

Text

'

~

,. 1}.r /,7c. '; >

~

I t

yg s 2 n13

El',0aA':DtI4 F02:

John F. Stolz, Chief LIS t !Iater Pcactors Cranch Gl, DP'!

h FDOM:

DelbertF.Dunch, Chief ficcident Analysis Grench, DSE

<UBJECT:

CPI.UD GULF r!UCLEAR STATIO!!, UNITS 1 N:D 2, FSAR ACCEPTN:CE T EVIEU l

i PLA:iT MiaE: Grand Culf, 1 agd 2 i

LICEMSIMG STf.CE: cCL' N

/

^

DOCKET !;U:::(ER: 50-41G, 417 MILESTO:iE hMIR:-01-31 f.ESPO';SIBLE FSA'in!: LWP. y1 PROJECT F/C.AGER:

C. O. Ti,cnas P.Er,UISTED CC;TLT.TIO i DATE: Itay 22, 1978 i'.E;!IEU STATU3: IM acceptance revie:s conplete Fa haya exanined the FSAR an.1 hee found "it^to be sufficiently cocplete to.be necepted. The attached questiens were generated during the acceptance revicu.

/sl Si' t F. '. d, CMcf

.'.ccil at I. ally;is Er a ch Division of Site Safety end Envtrennental Analysis 4

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See attached sheet

/

D Y

l L

(

1 773420229

~

l

. lib:DSE AAB:gSE,_

A3B;DSE7 AAB:DSE q

~) head I G d f a n '_..0Fh,ngh

-a*

~

3 -.. /.bm.... -..

W!jischan. l 54'!/78

,5/.19/78 (5@/78 5(s /78 W u. s. a cvmu tNr emur~a or ricri t s7s - e rs.es4 NAC FORM 315 (N6) NRCM 0:30 1032

. J 7 9 t o o 3 o g3 g

l John Stolz 2-pg 2 2 rd3 i

cc: S.Itentuce Distribution ll. Centon DDocket fit 6 D.l}ullcr AAB Reading D. trutchiteld AAB File

(.. Crocher DSE Reading I%

i-id(u/ocaci.)

0. Chip:.3it t.. Soffcr D. Vassallo it, DeYoung C. O. Tis as W. i;iscinn J. i'end 6

i

\\

OFFICE >

s v."

• w E >

eaTa >

NBC 1CR.'t 318 (9.'6) NROI 0243 N us s. oa v ga,'u twt rdisT1w i c r. rices 't o7s - ez s-ez3 1032 o

ACCEPTANCE REVIEW - GRAND GULF FSAR 311.1 The FSAR implies that the applicant owns all property within the exclusion area, but this should be explicitly stated, if true.

311.2 In Section 3.11.2.2 it was not clear what the sequence would be for the testing of the essential equipment to the more severe conditions associated with the DBA. Please clarify.

311.3 There are no radiological units associated with the dose rate values for the Design Basis Accident column in Table 3.11-2.

Please specify.

311.4 The dose rate values for the Design Basis Accident column of Table 3.11-2 appear to be instantane,us value (i.e., t=0).

Please state if this is the case.

If so, provide a simple figure giving the DBA dose rete as a function of time post-LOCA so that the accuracy of the total integrated dose over 6 uanths can.be verified.

If possible identify the major radioactive isotopes which contribute substantially to the dose at the end of 6 months.

311.5 Specify the beta purticle radiation dose rate. field in the drywell assoc-iated with DBA conditions. While it is accepted that the conduit will be of sufficient thickness to stop the poorly penetrating beta particles, describe any qualification testing that has been performed in the postu-lated high beta dose rate fields associated with DBA's to verify 1032 f7

that there are no adverse effects from; (1) surface iieating resulting from the energy deposition of the stopped particles; or (2) induced conductivity or secondary emission and charge transfer which can compromise component operation due to spurious false signal generation.

Provide appropriate details and references of such testing in the text.

311.6 The Figure 3.11-1 is not currently referenced in the text of Section 3.11.

Please reference and discuss in the appropriate i

i SAR section the purpose of this figure, the appr opriate dose rate associated with zones 1, 2 and 3 for both normal and accident conditions and how these dose rates were used in calculating the integrated dose values of Table 3.11-2.

Indicate on Figure 3.11-1 (if possible) the approximate location of the reference points identified in Table 3.11-2 for the drywell and containment.

311.7 Figure 3.11-2 is not currently referenced in the text of dAR Section 3.11.

Please reference and discuss the pwpose of this figure in the text of the appropriate SAR section. Also provide the normalizing value for t=720 hours and the justification for that value in light of the fact that the total integrated doses for the DBA conditions are supposedly calculated using a time period of 6 months (180 days).

l l

1032 l

. \\

n For a continuous containment purge system, such as proposed 311.8 for the Grand Gulf Mark III containment, analyze the radio-logical consequences from a postulated LOCA during a purge and include this analyses and results in the appropriate SAR section.

Provide in the analysis the assumptions with regard to the size of the pur,e lines and flow rate through the system, isolation valve cle ure time, amount of steam release prior to valve closure and any credit taken for removal of fission products prior to i

release of any radioactivity.

The text describes Table 3.11-4 as listing integrated dose con-311.9 These data should sequences, although none appear in this table.

be cdded to the table.

311.10 Provide a table listing all safety systems / components necessary to achieve and maintain a safe shutdown and needed to mitigate Include the radiological consequences of design basis accidents.

in the table, the method of tornado missile protection provided for each system / component and significant protection parameters (i.e.,

time on wall and roof thickness, concrete strength (psi) and curing which concrete strength is based etc.).

1032

~)