ML19257A447
| ML19257A447 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1979 |
| From: | Benedict R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001040305 | |
| Download: ML19257A447 (7) | |
Text
'
a arouq g
jo UNITED STATES g
E NUr' EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
h WASHINGTON, D. C 20555
%*****/
OEC 04 W9 00CKET NO. 50-382 APPLICANT: LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY FACILITY:
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF OCTOBER 31, 1979 MEETING ON WATERFORD UNIT 3 A meeting with the applicant was held in Bethesda on October 31, 1979. There were two main purposes for the meeting:
(1) to discuss the Waterford licensing schedule and (2) to discuss certain technical questions, the responses to which the applicant desired indication by the staff as to their acceptability. The participants are listed in Enclosure 1.
Scheduling Mr. Vassallo discussed the NRC priorities for review of license applications.
The first priority are those six plants having estimated fuel load dates within the next few months. Reviews for later plants will be scheduled basically by fuel load dates.
In the case of Waterford we are presently trying to develop a schedule that leads to issuance of the staff Safety Evaluation Report by the end of CY 1980. This would allow enough time for ACRS meetings and the con-tested public hearing to be held and an initial decision to be made by September 1981. This is the staff's present estimate of the Waterford fuel load date.
Mr. Varga noted that we have arranged with some of the DOE national laboratories to assist in those areas of our review that are most impacted by the requirements of our work related to the TMI accident. Wa are developing review schedules that factor in the work at the laboratories, and we hope to have detailed schedules in about a month. Mr. Vassallo notes that we hope to have firm schedules shortly after January 1, 1980.
When all our arrangements with the laboratories have been made, we will notify the applicant of these arrangements. The applicant may contact the laboratory to make sure that the FSAR and amendments have been received by the laboratory.
All other contacts should be made through the licensing project manager as usual.
The applicant noted the similarity between the nuclear steam supply system for San Onofre 2/3 and that for Waterford. Such similarity should help the review schedule by eliminating the need to review aspects of Waterford that are the same as those of San Onofre and that have been found to be acceptable by the staff's San Onofre reviewers. Mr. Baer pointed out that we tried to utilize the San Onofre work before, but not successfully. However, it could be helpful if the applicant would identify specifically everything, in detail, that is identical between the two plants. Functional identity is not enough -- the identity must get down to the hardware. The applicant stated that he would look into the matter.
1685 306 so oion 30 f g
~
DEC 0 19 7 o In response to the applicant's question about which review branches were working on Waterford, I noted that only the Hydrology Branch was working actively on Waterford at the moment and that round 2 questions and positions should be forthcoming in a few weeks.
Mr. Drummond described what the applicant is doing to factor into the design the lessens learned from the TMI accident. Their work will be factored into the design as changes to the FSAR, with detailed references in Chapter 1.
Some of the responses to NUREG-0578 Lessons Learned will be generic from the CE owners group. LP&L will start submitting information in January 1980, and, except for some of the detailed analyses that must be performed, should be 907, complete by June 1980.
Mr. Varga noted that letters would be forthcoming soon to give direction on the application of results of the Bulletins and Orders work and the Lessons Learned work. The ATWS rulemaking will not now be factored into the review schedules, ncr will the Long Term Lessons Learned until they have been reviewed by H. Denton and their implementation has been determined.
Technical The applicant had asked for early feedback on the acceptability of their responses to certain of the staff's questions. A sumary of the discussion on each question is given below.
Q 313.11 Mr. Read stated that the chlorine and ammonia detection system appears to be acceptable. However, detector response time and valve closure times should be provided. We will note that in a formal question.
Q 32.19 We have not reviewed the response to this question. Mr. Satter-field stated that we would try to look at this question in a few days. (Note: The results of our review were sent to the appli-cant informally on November 14,1979.)
Q 211.2 Mr. Lois noted that there was not enough information in the respor.se concerning compliance with Reactor Systems Branch Techni-cal Position 5.2 on low temperature overpressure protection. The system must comply with GDC 15 and IEEE-279. The applicant stated that the response would be revised.
Q 32.1 On environmental qualification, Mr. Satterfield noted that the CE topical report is outdated. A NUREG report will be issued soon that addresses environmental qualification. He noted that the harsh environment resulting from a LOCA requires testing, but analysis or testing is acceptable for equipment required to function after a main steam line break. The new NUREG will be sent to the applicant when it is issued.
1685 307
. DEC 0 '1979 Q 22.10 The staff had not reviewed the response concerning temperature analysis methods for equipment environmental qualification.
(Note: Since that time, Mr. Pickett reviewed the information.
The SOLA code has not been reviewed. The use of a " realistic heat transfer" coefficient is not acceptable; the applicant should use the staff's interim position. This information was transmitted to the applicant by telephone later.)
Q 22.20 Mr. Pickett indicated that the response is acceptable concerning diversity. We also consider modified isolation provisions for non-essential cooling water systems such as reactor coolant pump cooling water.
Q 22.8 Continuous purging is acceptable if the calculated doses are Q 22.11 acceptable. However, basing the containment pressure technical Q 313.30 specification on a "best estimate" is not acceptable. Debris may present valves from closing. Some plants include screens upstream to catch debris, but we do not yet have mesh size criteria. Concerning the response to part 5b of Q 22.8 the applicant agreed to examine whether or not failure of nonsafety-related equipment might prevent proper operation of safety-related equipment.
Q 32.3 Dr. Hou indicated that seismic qualification review is done on a case-by-case basis, not by a generic topical report. Plant-specific information must be supplied on how equipment meets the specified levels. Dr. Hou showed two slides summarizing our review (see Enclosures 2 and 3). The Naval Researcn Laboratory will be assisting us in this review. We agreed to set up a meeting with the staff, NRL and the applicant to discuss this matter.
~
Mr. Sernatinger noted that our present requirements are based on 1975 response spectra methods whereas equipment is still being procured based on 1971 methods.
Q 110.1 Staff review of CENPD-178 concerning asymmetric loads resulted in Q 231.2 questions being sent to Combustion Engineering in August 1979.
We hope to complete our review in about six months. Plant-specific analyses must be performed. The staff agreed to try to clarify its requirements.
Q 121.4 I noted that the QA branch review of test abstracts is in abeyance due to lack of manpower. We will attempt, however, to factor into our review the previous acceptance of the San Onofre 2 and 3 abstracts, s
1
.t b
(MD R. A. Benedict Light Water Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Project Management Enclosures : As Stated 1685 308 ccs w/ enclosures: See next page
Mr. D L. Aswell Vice Iresident, Poser iredtction Louisiana Ponter !. Liaht Loriparty DEC 0 4 jyyg 142 Delaronn Street th p n loann Louici
>a 70 171 cc: '... I a l coli. :
thnroe & Luu.
1424 Whitney Bu i l<II. g fiesi Orleans, Louisiana 70 130 ftr. E. Blake
%ais, Pi ttnan, hd ts an:t Te obbridge 1000 M Struct, la, u.
D ihD j
Lashington,D. C.
2h0 M Fr. D. B. Lester Production Engineer tcuisiana Power & Light Cv.irany 142 Delaronde Street f <ni Orleans, Louisiana 10174 1.yu an L. Jones, Jr., [ q.
Gillespie & Jones 910 Security llumestead Building 1900 Veterans f:<:rrerial Poulevard Natairie, Louisiana 10002 luk e fontana, Esq.
tiillespie & Jones 824 Esplanade /ven se flest Orleans, l.onic. iana 70116 Stephen M. Irving, Esq.
One /merican I'l ace, 50 ii e 160 i Baton Route, Loutsiana 10325 1685 309
.\\
Drc 0 *tg7e ENCLOSUP.E 1 ATTENDANCE LIST MEETING WITH WATERFORD, UNIT 3 OCTOBER 31, 1979 LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT C0WANY S. Alleman ( Assistant Plant Manager)
D. L. Aswell, (VP, Power Production)
F. J. Drummond (Project Manager)
D. B. Lester (Plant Manager)
R. Prados (Licensing Engineer)
EBASCO SERVICES, INC.
J. Costello (Licensing)
J. B. Hart (Licensing)
J. C. Saldarini (Licensing)
C0f0USTION ENGINEERING H. B. Mulliken ( Assistant Project Manager)
F. C. Sernatinger (Project Manager)
NRC - STAFF R. L. Baer (Chief, LWR #2)
R. A. Benedict (Licensing Project Manager)
S. A. Varga ( Acting Assistant Director, LWR)
D. B. Vassallo ( Acting Director, DPM)
H. L. Brammer (Mechanical Engineering)
T. G. Dunning (Instrumentation and Control)
S. Hou (Mechanical Engineering.)
M. D. Houston (Core Performance)
L. Lois (Reactor Systems)
R. E. Martin (Reactor Systems)
D. V. Pickett (Containment Systems)
J. B. J. Read ( Accident Analysis)
R. M. Satterfield (Chief, Instrumentation and Control) 1685 510
ENCLOSURE 2 E&D,3M Eh T DYNAMIC GUALIFICATION R.EVIE W oRo cEDUR ES I. GENERAL IN FORMATION REVlEW
(',5AR OR SEPAR ATE Doc 0MENTS) 2
- O.UA LIFICA-f 0N
SUMMARY
CCRITERI A Ir G.U A L I FI CA TION PROGR A M )
LIST OF ALL ERUl? MENT
. INCLODE:
80P 4 NSSS ELEC. 4 MECH.
FOR EACH EGdlPMENT, SPEclFY N AM E, LOCATION ( B L D 6., E L E.V. )
SAFETY ?UNCTl0K 5
GUALIFICATidM METHOP 5
A\\/AILA BI LITY '20R INS PECTioK U S ( B LD6. E L E V. )
C EdK. 4 HYPRODYNAMIC LdADSj COMPLETION O 2 QUALIFICATION dR, RE-EVALUATloN
ENCLOSURE 3 or" : sm H.
S6LRT AUplT
- SELECT SAMPLE ITEMS FOR SGRT DATA SHEET
. DETAI LS OF AN ALYSis D ETAI LS OF TESTING RE PORT
- S&RT SITE \\/ISIT INSPECT SPECIFIED ITEMS 0 $ SERVE OVERALL PER L: 0RMANCE
. DISCOSS O PEN ITEMS S DECIFY FOLLODJ
~UP ACTIONS C IF AhY)
H.
1 S ER BY STAE TV.
ACRS V
POST-ACR,5 RE VI EW
(. IF ANY j VT.
irlN A L AMEN DNENT TO FSE R