ML20003C451
| ML20003C451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/11/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Gray R TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103060090 | |
| Download: ML20003C451 (5) | |
Text
=
ma ats DL g
UNITID STATES o.
[
NUCLEAR ' REGULATORY COMMISSION s.,
g..
p WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 t
c
%,.....f Docket Nos. 50-445 a'nd 50-446 n
Mr. R. J. Gary Executive Vice President and General Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Towers Dallas, Texas 75201
Dear Mr. Gary:
SUBJECT:
RE0 VEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFOR tATION FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 Enclosed is a request for additional information which we require to complete our evaluation of your application for operating licenses for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.
This request for additional information is the result of our continuing review by the Containment Systems Branch and the Licensee Qualification Branch. Please amend your FSAR to include the inforcation requested in the Enclosure.
Your response to the enclosed request for additional information should be submitted with six (6) weeks. Should you have questions concerning this request for additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely, Robert L. Tedesco Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Information f' [ *s.
/F cc w/ enclosure:
M See next page hnkk f
u.
'T N.
/u7
@4
^s t
f c:>
2'
+ % p..
s
Mr. R. J. Gary Executive Vice President and General Manager FEB 11 1981 Texas Utilities Generating Company i
2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Nicholas S. Reynolds Esq.
Mr. Richard L. Fouke cc:
Debevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation 1658-B Carter Drive Washington, D. C.
20036 Arlington, Texas 76010 Spencer C. Relyea, Esq.
Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels Nuclear Power Station 2001 Bryan Tower i
c/o U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, Texas 75201 P. O. Box 38 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Manager - Nuclear Services Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Mr. H. R. Rock Gibbs and Hill, Inc.
393 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001 Mr. A. T. Parker Westinghouse Electric Corporation i
P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 t
David J. Preister Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Geoffrey M. Gay, Esq.
r P
West Texas Legal Services 406 W. T. Waggoner Building 810 Houston Street i,-
Fort Worth, Texas 76102 l
I l
?
.r h [
1 i
ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET-NOS. 50-445/446 022.0 Containment Systems Branch 022.20 The response to Question Q22.8 with regard to the containment purge /
Vent system design and operation is inadequate.
Provide the follow-ing information:
(11 Propose a technital spectfication to limit the use of the main containment purge system (48-inch lines) to the reactor oper-ational modes of cold shutdown and refueling (modes 5 and 6).
(
(2)
With regard to the containment pressure relief system (18-inch line):
a.
If system operation is not expected to exceed 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year during plant operating modes 1, 2, 3 and 4, pro-pose an appropriate Technical Specification limiting sys-tem operation to less than 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year.
b.
If system operation is expected to exceed 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per year, provide the basis for venting and justification that the proposed snnual venting time is as low as reasonably achievable.
c.
Discuss the provisions (e.g., screens) made to ensure that isolation valve closure will not be prevented by debris which j
could potentially become entrained in the escaping air and steam.
}
8
,,, h y
' l.'t
.d.
As a result of our study of valve leakage due to seal deteri-oration, leakage integrity tests of the isolation valves in the containment pressure relief line are required to, be conducted following each cycling of the isolation valves in the system, but not 'more often than once each month nor less often than once each six months. Also, discuss the pro-visions to be made for testing the availability of the isola-tion function and leakage rate of the isolation valves, in-dividually, during reactor operation.
t e.
Specify the allowable leak rates of the vent isolation valves for the spectrum of design basis pressure and flows against which the valves'must close, f.
Specify the amount of containment atmosphere that would be released through the vent isolation valves during the time
. required for them to close following a LOCA.
g.
Provide an analysis of the reduction in the ccntainment pres-i sure resulting froa the partial loss of containment atmosphere following a LOCA and discuss the effect on ECCS per<,rmance.
l 022.21 Isolation. valve arrangement No.11 (for penetration Nos. MII-2 and MTI-3) as shown in Figure 6.2.4-1 does not meet the requirements of General De-l 1
sign Criteria 55, 56 or 57. Therefore, provide an isolation valve out-side the containment for each of the above two penetrations.
Q s
422.0 Licensee cualification Branch 422.10 In a generic letter dated July 31, 1980, the NRC set forth intdrim criteria for shift staffing in which we recuired that your administrative procedures stipulate that overtime shall not be routinely scheduled to compensate for an inadequate number of personnel to meet the shift crew staffing requirements. We recuire documentation regarding your plans to provide sufficient plant operators to preclude the need for routine scheduling of overtime. The documentation should includn the number of operators required considering the planned rotation of assigned duties (discuss the intended nU ber of shifts and shift m
crews, including those in training and assigned other duties) and the number of operators available based on realistic assumptions regarding licensing examination failure rates and staff attrition. The projections should extend several years beyond startup of Unit 2 to demonstrate a stable manning situation.
l i
k
)
7 h
e