ML19284A468
| ML19284A468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1979 |
| From: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eric Turner HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903060524 | |
| Download: ML19284A468 (7) | |
Text
,1 TSRA b
UN!TED STATES j
5,4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON j
WASHINGTON, D. C,20555
. %1%f E o,
.f' FEB 0 21979 Docket Nos. STN 50-498 and STN 50-499 Mr. E. A. Turner Vice President Houston Lighting and Power Company P. O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001
Dear Mr. Turner:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE REVIEW 0F THE SOUTH TEXAS FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (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 areas of reactor physics, effluent treatment, radiological assessment and hydrology 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,
/h Wfuk
_w s Olan D. Parr, Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page 790306059Y
4 Mr. E. A. Turner cc:
Mr. D. G. Barker 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 Gooch, Esq.
P. O. Box 2121 Baker & Botts Corpus Christi, Texas 78403 1701 Pennsyl vania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Mr. R. L. Hancock City of Austin Director, Governor's Budget 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 Mr. J. H. Pepin Brown & Root, Inc.
P. O. Box 3 Houston, Texas 77001
ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITI0flAL IflFORMATI0f!
FOR THE REVIE'il 0F THE FSAR COR THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UrlITS 1 A'10 2 s
232-1 232.0 REACTOR PHYSICS State whether the uncertainty in the calculation of FfH has been 232.1 (4.3.2.2) reduced to four percent in the final design of the South Texas plant.
232.2 Expand the discussion of the reasons for the smaller Doppler (4.3.2.3) coefficient as a function of power at EOL as compared to BOL.
232.3 Comment on the division of the MTC into density and temperature (4.3.2.3) effects as a function of core lifetime. Recent calculaticos (to be published) by BNL suggest that the spectral (temperature) component is positive and is a significant portion of the total MTC for cores with large (s 10 GWd/t) burnups. Coment on the effect of the use of dens'cy only moderator coefficients in the affected transients in Chapter 15, particularly for reload cycles (Ref. letter, Eicneldinger to Ross, dated February 28, 1978, NS-CE-1706).
232.4 State whether the coolant temperature control action is passive (4.3.2.4)
(in that the coolant temperature automatically responds to power changes) or whether a deliberate action is undertaken.
For example, in a rapid power rise performed as part of a load following procedure, state whether there is an anticipatory increase in moderator temperature in preparation for the power rise.
232.5 Discuss whether the burnable poison rod pattern shown in Figure (Fig.
4.3-5 of the FSAR is consistent with the power distributions and 4.3-5) reactivity coefficients given for the South Texas core.
232.6 Provide an estimate of the uncertainty in the calculation of the (4.3.2.8) flux at the inner boundary of the pressure vessel.
Discuss how the azimuthal peaking factor is ootained.
State whether comparisons have been made between calculations and measurements for sample locations.
If so, provide this information.
232.7 Provide the value of moderator reactivity coefficient used in the (15.4.1.2) analysis of the startup accident.
State whether the value is a combination of spectral and density coefficients or only a density coefficient.
232.8 Discuss how the overtemperature A-T setpoint is reduced for this (15.4.2.2) transient (the uncontrolled rod cluster control assembly withdrawal at power).
232.9 Discuss the difference in operating strategy, cases calculated, (Table core design, etc., which lead to a peaking factor of 2.50, as 4.3-2) compared to the usual value of 2.32 obtained from the constant axial offset control strategy.
'321-1 321.0 EFFLUENT TREATMENT SYSTEMS 321.9 You propose a cement radwaste solidification system but you have (11.4.2.6) referred to polymer solidification systems in your examples.
Provide cla ri fication. Also provide a more detailed description of your proposed radwaste solidification system.
If the system is the Hittman system described in Topical Report HN-R1109, "Radwaste Solidification System (Cement)", by the Hittman Nuclear and Development Corporation, a reference to this topical report would be an acceptable response to this request, provided that you include (1) the interface information identified in the report and (2) discuss any deviations from the system in the report.
321.10 Provide a plot plan locating the unit vent and the three TGB (11. 3. 3.1 )
vents.
Include details on the size of the three chambers in the unit vent.
331-1 331.0 RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 331.6 With regard to the review cf the design process, and changes made (12.1.1.2) as a result, to assure that occupational radiation exposures are (12.1.2) as low as is reasonably achievable:
(1)
Identify by title the individuals who have been responsible for the radiation prutection aspects of the design review, and describe their relationship to the individual responsible for the overall plant design.
(2)
Provide a breakdown by title of radiation protection personnel who have been participating in such reviews, tabulating the health physics education and experience required of each.
(3) Describe formal arrangements and procedures for assuring that adequate radiation protection reviews are performed throughout the design and construction processes and that adequate records are kept to document the completion of each such review.
(4) Describe specific examples of actual dose-reducing changes in design that have resulted from these radiation protection design reviews.
331.7 Discuss the features that you have incorporated into your design (12.3) to assist the decommissioning crews in maintaining occupational radiation exposures as low as is reasonably achievable during the eventual decommissioning of your plant.
331.8 Describe precautions taken and to be taken to prevent inadvertent (12 3) access during fuel transfer to the very high radiation areas in the vicinity of the fuel transfer tube, e.g.,
to the space immediately adjacent to the tube, shown at C2 in Figure 1.2-45.
331.9 Describe features you have incorporated into both your design and (12.3.1.3) operational plans as a result of the considerations identified in C.2.e of Regulatory Guide 8.8, Revision 2.
331.10 Describe your proposed system for monitoring an individual's (12.5.3.6) exposures to neutron radiation, and how you propose to take the neutron energy spectrum into account. A commitment to the provisions of Regulatory Guide 8.14 will provide an acceptable answer to this request.
371-1 371.0 HYDROLOGY 371.2 The values of solar radiation in Table 2.3-22, used in the analysis (2.3) of the Ultimate Heat Sink pond in Section 9.2.5, appear to be daily maximum values, but are not labeled as such.
Correct Table 2.3-22 to clarify if the solar radiation values are daily maximums or daily averages.
4