ML19282B910
| ML19282B910 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1979 |
| From: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eric Turner HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| References | |
| 790227, NUDOCS 7903190019 | |
| Download: ML19282B910 (8) | |
Text
rpp
.t km afogS UNITED ST ATES
- k 3\\
3f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,(. A WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 a.
t
%, m.c,$
+....
FEB 2 31979 Docket flos. STil 50-498 and STfl 50-499 Mr. E. A. Turner Vice President Houston Lighting and Fower Company P. O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001
Dear Mr. Turner:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL IflFORMATIOi FOR THE REVIEW 0F THE SOUTH TEXAS FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS l'IP0RT (FSAR)
As a result of our continuing review of the South Texas FSAR, we find that we need additional information to complete our evaluation. The specific information required is in the area of containment systems and is listed in the Enclosure.
To maintain our licensing review schedule for the South Texas FSAR, we will need responses to the enclosed request by May 21, 1979.
If you cannot meet this date, please inform us within seven days after receipt of this letter of the date you plan to submit your responses so that we may review our schedule for any necessary changes.
Please contact us if you desire any discussion or clarification of the enclosed request.
Sincerely, bb an u. var, cnief Light Water Reactors Branch tio. 3 Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/ enclosure:
,See next page 79031900l'1-
Mr. E. A. Turner FEB 2 31979 cc:
Mr. D. G. Ba rker Mr. Troy C. Webb Manager, South Texas Project Assistant Attorney General Houston Lighting and Power Company Environmental Protection Div.
P. O. Box 1700 P. O. Box 12548 Houston, Texas 77001 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Mr. M. L. Borchelt Central Power and Light Company Mr. R. Gordon Cocch, Esq.
P. O. Box 2121 Baker & Botts Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20005 Mr. R. L. Hancock City of Austin Director, Governor's Sudget Electric Utility Department and Planning Office P. O. Box 1088 Executive Office Building Austin, Texas 78767 411 W. 13th Street Austin, Texas 78701 Mr. J. B. Poston Assistant General Manager for Operations City Public Service Board P. O. Box 1771 San Antonio, Texas 78296 Mr. Jack R. Newman, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Axelrad & Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Mr. Melbert Schwarz, Jr., Esq.
Baker & Botts One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Mr. G. Hohmann Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. E. R. Schmidt NUS Corporation NUS-4 Research Place Rockville, Maryland 20850 t'r. J. H. Pepin Brown & Root, Inc.
P. O. Box 3 Houston, Texas 77001 5
y
t ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR A00ITI0tlAL IrlFORMATI0il FOR THE REVIE'l 0F THE FSAR 009 THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UtlITS 1 A'!9 2 O
Me
022-1 022.0 CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS 022.8 In Section 6.2.1.2.3.1,it is st.ted that the pressure transients were (6.2.1) determined with the RELAP-3 computer code. However, it is our understanding that this version of the RELAP code models only single component two-phase flow, thereby neglecting the effects of air.
Therefore, provide a discussion as to how th,is assumption in the model (i.e., neglecting air) will affect the net results of each subcompartment analysis.
022.9 The response to Request No. 022.5 regarding containment purging is incomplete (6.2)
(9.4.5) since you plan to use the supplementary containment purge subsystem (Section 9.4.5.2.6) more than 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year.
Therefore, address the following sections of BTP CSB 6-4 (which was provided during the Acceptance Review):
B.l.a. B.l'.c, B.l.g. andLB.5.h.
022.10 The response to Request No. 022.5 states that usage of the normal containment (6.2) purge subsystem will be restricted to post-shutdown periods.
Provide a clarification that the term " post-shutdown" refers only to the cold shutdown and refueling modes of plant operation.
e
022-2 022.11 The response to Request No. 022.5 assumes a maximum closure time for (6.2)
(RSP) the supplementary containment purge subsystem (18-inch) isolation valves of 25 seconds.
It is our position that the closure time for the valves should not exceed 5 seconds (3ee BTP CSB 6-4, Item B.l.f).
Revise your FSAR accordingly.
022.12 Provide the following information regarding the post-LOCA hydrogen (6.2) production analysis:
(1) The total surface area of the zinc-based protective coating system within the containment; (2) The total mass of zinc associated with the coating system; and (3) Specification and justification of the corrosion rates for the zinc-based coating system.
022.13 Provide detailed drawings of the containment emergency sump, including (6.2) the sump screen structures, and discuss how the sump design complies with Regulatory Guide 1.82.
022'14 In Section 6.2.2.3.5, " Pump Net Positive Suction Head Requirements,"
(6.2.2) it is concluded that adequate NPSH will be available for the containment spray system pumps based on a Westinghouse analysis.
Provide this analysis to permit us to evaluate the extent of compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.1.
e 022-3 022.15 Augment Table 6.2.4-1 " Containment Isolation Valving" and Figure (6.2.4) 6.2-4 " Schematic Diagram Containment Isolation Valving" to include any piping branch lines situated between the containment and the penetration isolation valves.
022.16 The containment isolation valves for the supplemental containment purge (6.2.4)
(RSP) subsystem are motor operated valves, which by design fail in the "as is" position upon loss of power.
It is our position that valves,which close upon loss of actuating power, be used for containment purge systems. Discuss your pidns for complying with this position.
022.17 In Section 6.2.4.2.1, "Special Containment Isolation Provisions," it is (6.2.4) stated that remote manual valves are used in ESF lines. As stated in Standard Review Plan 6.2.4 (Item II.ll), the design of the containment isolation system is acceptable if provisions are made to allow the operator in the main control room to know when to isolate fluid systems that are equipped with remote manual isolation valves. Discuss the design features that assure compliance with SRP 6.2.4.
022.18 It is our position that all power operated valves be provided with (6.2.4)
(RSP) status indication in the main control room. Provide confirmation that this position will be met.
e
5 022-4 022.19 The response to Request !!o. 022.7 is not complete. Therefore, provide the (6.2.4) following information:
(1) The response to Item 5 of 022.7 does not address the issue.
If a system is not vented and drained for the Type A test, it is presumed that the system will not constitute a containment atmosphere leak path following a LOCA.
For this situation to exist, there must be a sufficient water inventory at a sufficiently high pressure to preclude containment leakage or to assure that only liquid leakage will occur. Therefore, justify that a sufficient water inventory will exist assuming a single failure of any active component. Discuss how hydrostatic testing of the system, including the containment isolat:nn valves, will be done to quantify the liquid leakage and to demonstrate inventory.
(RSP)
(2) The response to Item 6 of 022.7 does not address the issue. Certain systems may be needed to facilitate the performance of the containment integrated leakage rate test and, therefore, are not vented and drained. However, under accident conditions these systems may become containment atmosphere leak paths.
It is these systems which should be addressed.
It is our position that the containment isolation valves in these systems be locally (Type C) leak tested and the measured leakage added to the Type A test results.
Identify the systems involved and discuss your plans for complying with the above position.
,e 022-5 022.19 (3) Provide the basis for concluding that reverse leakage testing of (6.2.4)
(Cont'd) containment. isolation valve FXC050 (see Table 6.2.2-3) is at least equivalent to testing the valve in the forward direction.
(4) Table 6.2.6-2 indicates that containment isolation valves associated with the secondary side will not be locally (Type C) leak tested.
However, if containment atmosphere leakage is postulated to occur through the steam generator tube bundle,'the secondary system isolation valves would become containment atmosphere leak paths.
In this regard, a water seal may be shown to exist that will preclude containment atmosphere leakage.
If this approach is taken, discuss how a water seal can be established
- .d maintained using safety grade pipes and components. Provide system drawings showing the routing and elevation of piping to show the existence of a water seal.
(RSP)
(5) It is our position that the containment isolation valves for the following piping penetrations be included in the local (Type C) leak testing program:
M-41, M-42, M-43, M-44, M-54, M-71 and M-87.
Discuss your plans _for complying with this position.
.