ML19350D532
| ML19350D532 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1981 |
| From: | Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | William Jones OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104160434 | |
| Download: ML19350D532 (4) | |
Text
76P//
pnnauq'o, UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f,
! h,. ); %
E WASHINGTo N, D. C. ?O555 s a2j/
April 6, 1981
%, ' s Docket No. 50-285 Mr. W. C. Jones Division Manager, Production Operations Omaha Public Power District i
1623 Harney Street Omaha, Nebraska 68102
Dear Mr. Jones:
In conducting our review of your responses to our letter of November 29, 1978 relating to containment purge and vent at the Fort Calhoun Station, Unit Fo.1, we have determined that we will need the additional information identified in the enclosure to continue our review, In order for us to maintain our review schedule, your response is requested within 60 days of your receipt of this letter.
Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this request.
Sincerely,
[
Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing Enclosure.
D Request for Additional 43 Information s
cc w/ enclosure:
3
'L.U v
\\
See next page g
APR1 379ggh $
YoWsQucn,
E104160@Y p
. _ ~.
4
- a.2 Public Power District i
Marflyn A. Tebor Director, Criteria and Standards Division i
' ai:euf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae Office of Radiation Programs (ANR-450)
',:33 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency na s r.i ngton, D. C.
20036 Washington, D. C.
20460
". Errett Rogert U.S. Environmental Protection Agency airran, Washington County Region VII S:a-d of Supervisors ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR E'a'r, Nebraska 68023 324 East lith Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106
. ' a Public Pcwer District A
T'. :
Mr. Spencer Stevens Plant Manager
- r: Calhcun Plant
~
I f 22 Harney Street 4
j 0 a a, Nebraska 68102 Director, Nebraska Department of Environmental Control M. Frank Gibson P. O. Box 94877, State House Station e'. : ale Clark Library Lincoln, Nebraska (3509 2' 5 Scuth 15th Street a a, Nebraska 68102 3
4* a-M. Kirshen, Esq.
l Fil' man, Ramsey & Kirshen l' 5' Woodmen Tcwer
- .3 a, Nebraska 68102 i
M. Dennis Kelley
'). S.N.R.C. Resident I nspector 3
~. Sex 68 F:r: Calhoun, Nebraska 68023
- v.. Charles B. Brinkman Mant;er - Washington Nuclear
- eratiens
- -E ?cwer Syster.s
- ;s-icn Engineering Inc.
- 152 Cordell Avenue, Suite A-1 it resda, Maryland 20014 I
t w
, - - -g..,.~,-
,.,,,---.,,en,
4 REQUES* FOR ADDITIONAL IhTCFF.ATION FORT CAU!OUN STATION 1
DOCKET 650-285 i
Your response to the November 29, 1978 letter regarding the containment purge / vent system is incomplete. By response dated December 28, 1978, you plan to justify unlimited use of the 42" diameter Containment Purge System.
In order that we may complete our review please provide the following information:
1)
In our review of containment purging practice we are engaged in the evaluation of justifications in operating purge / vent systems. Your a
response dated December 28, 1978; February 8, 1979; and September 1
28, 1979 is inadequate. Please submit a detailed analysis which justifies the esti=ated annual usage of the purge system and associated equipnent.
2)
Your response dated September 28, 1979 to item B.1.g of B P CSB 6-4 i
is not sufficient.
Submit an evaluaticn which demonstrates that the I
debris screens and associated piping between the screens and I
isolation valves are designed, fabricated, and installed as seismic Category I equipment with Group B quality standards (as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.26).
Demonstrate by analysis that the screens 3
l will remain in place and intact under transient LOCA conditions.
Debris screens must be provided for exhaust and intake ductwork in order to protect the purge isolation valves.
3)
As a result of our study of valve leakage due to seal deterioration, leakage integrity tests of the isolation valves in the containment line are required to be conducted following each e/ cling of the isolation valves in the system, but not more often than once each I
month nor less of ten than once each six months. Your response dated December 28, 1978; February 8, 1979 and September 28, 1979 is i
l inadequa te.
Discuss the provisions to be made for testing the
)
availability of the isolation function and leakage rate of the purge isolation valves, individually, during reactor operation.
f 4)
Propose a Technical Specification which would limit the leak rats of purge valves HCV-742 A, B, C, & D to the rates stated in your September 28, 1979 response to item B.S.d of CSB 6-4.
5)
Your response to Item B.S.c (CSB 6-4) dated September 29, 1979 l.
indicates that you plan to, supply the following: Provide an analysis of the redaction in the containment pressure resulting frc=
j the partial loss of containment atmosphere following a LOCA and discuss the eff ect on ECCS performance. Please submit this analysis i
with the provision that valve closure time shruld include instrumentation delays.
l i
ENCLOSURE l
i
_. _ = _ _ __.__ _ _
l 1
5; specify the a, cunt of contain=ent at:csphere that would be released through the Contai.. ment Purge System isolation valves d.tring the tine required for them to close following a LCCA.
Include instrumentation delays (from inception of LOCA) and actual valve elesure time.
7)
Propose an addition to your Technical Specifications which limits parge isolation valve closure tine to no more than 5 seconcts, including instrumenestion delays. This addition should reflect the action to be taken 11' the valves fail to close in the specified time during normal operability tests.
2 I
i s
i e
\\
i
- _.._- -,~,-,
-