ML20027A537
| ML20027A537 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 12/15/1978 |
| From: | Bournia A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parr O, Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812200026 | |
| Download: ML20027A537 (7) | |
Text
.p""""%
UNITED 'ITATES
{
A
[v, j,0'4 NUCLEAR REGULA10RY COMMISSION
- (*$(cbhj'!
/.y wassincron. o. c. 20sss 3,
,, j DEC 15 '678 Docket flos. 50-373 and 50-374 MEMORAflDUM FOR:
D. B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors, Division of Project Management THRU:
- 0. D. Parr, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch t!o. 3, Division of Project Management FROM:
A. Bournia, Project Manager, Light Water Reactors Branch flo. 3, Division of Project Management
/
FUBJECT:
STATUS OF LA SALLE REVIEW REGARDIflG LA SALLE COUtlTY STATI0tl, UtilTS 1 & 2 Per your request, I am providing two enclosures regarding the La'Salle review: (1) a listing of the outstanding issues identified to date in the la Salle SER inputs, and (2) a status report regarding SER inputs yet to be received.
Regarding Enclosure 1, we have identified all of the outstanding issues to Commonwealth, in writing. We are now working to resolve these matters.
Regarding Enclosure 2, I arn concerned that several branches are scheduled to provide me with their inputs only two weeks (December 31) before I am scheduled to provide the SER to Olan (January 15) and then to An Further, AAB (Kazimieras)you for review.and I&CB (Scholl) y slippage would be cr question their ability to deliver by the end of December..
- t,g H [b,m ~
(
Anthony Bournia, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch flo. 3 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
As Stated cc:
- 0. Parr 7 812 2 0 0 042 G h
ENCLOSU'lE 1 Status of La Salle Issues (1) tieteorology - (2.3.3 & 2.3.6)
The display of meteorological data in the control room on analog dial meters are not acceptable because they provide instantaneous readings.
Instantaneous readings of parameters such as wind, speed and direction may provide misleading information.
We require equipment that provide time average values.
(2) Meteorology - (2.3.6)
Due to malfunction of equipment, we do not have a complete second year meteorological data as required by Regulatory Guide 1.70.
The additional data is scheduled to be submitted in December 1978.
(3)
Flood Potential - (2.4.2)
The revised gradation for the riprap submitted in Amendment 36 to the FSAR is unacceptable for a 24-inch layer of riprap.
The mismatch of gradation and layer thickness negates the erosion resistance of the riprap and would result in failure of that spillway under design conditions.
(4)
Protection Against Dynamic Effects Associated with the Postulated Rupture of Piping - (3.6)
The high energy systems outside containment have not been analyzed to determine the effects of pipe whip and jet impingement in accordance with the Branch Technical Position APCSB 3-1.
(5)
Seismic Input - (3.7.1) r(
Co'mplete information pertaining to seismic input has not been furnished to judge the adequacy of the plant's seismic Category I structures for withstanding seismic forces as defined in our current seismic design requirement.
(This item has been an on-gain /off-gain matter between Engineering (Knight) and Commonwealth (Reed).
We understand that Knight has again reversed himself and that Structural Engineering Branch will subn:it a revised question addressing their concern of this matter).
(6) Concrete Ccntainment (3.8.1)
The design of the containment and its interior structures have not been designed to withstand pool dynamic loads.
(Mark II problem)
/
2-i (7) Concrete and Structural Steel Internal Structure - (3.8.2)
The design of concrete and structural steel interior structures in the wet well to withstand pool dynamics remain to be confirm.
(Mark II problem).
(8)
Seismic Design and Qualifications of Instrumentation and Electrical Equipment - (3.10)
We require the documentations of seismic qualification tests and/or analysis results for selected electrical equipment.
g (9)
Env'ironmental Design and Qualification of Instrumentation and Electrical Equipment - (3.11)
Complete information have not been submitted. responding to our requests j
for additional information.
In addition, the radiation environment is lower than values reviewed for similar plants.
(10) Peach Bottom Turbine Trip Tests - (4.4.1) (4.4.2)
These tests must be evaluated and assess using the ODYN computer code.
We have not completed our review of the 0DYN Code..
j (11) MCPR - (4.4.1) (4.4.2)
After completion of item 10, the minimum critical power ratio must be recalculated taking into consideration the turbine trip without bypass event.
i l
(12) Compliance with Codes and Code Cases (5.2.1)
Additional information is required for certain Quality Groups A q
components within the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
(13) Appendix G (5.3.1)
We have determined that the reactor vessel does not meet all specific.
requirements of Appendix G.
We are reviewing to identify all areas of noncompliance requiring an exemption.
(14) Appendix H (5.3.3)
We have determined that the surveillance program does not achieve compliance with Appendix H.
We are reviewing to identify all areas of noncompliance requiring an exemption.
f J
l s-.
...s_._-_..y.e.___%...
my
...~.m.
.,,,me..m
---..,..,m..
~
~
[ (15) Reactor Containment Electrical Penetrations (8.4.1)
La Salle's electrical system does not meet our requirements for protection under low or degraded grid voltage conditions.
(16) Onsite Power Systems (8.3)
Test results for the diesel generators to indicate margin have not been submitted.
(17) Reactor Containment Electrical Penetrations (8.4.1)
The reactor containment electrical penetrations do not conform to Regulatory Guide 1.63 and test results do not demonstrate that the electrical penetrations can maintain their integrity for maximum fault current.
s (18) Adequacy of the 120-Volt Alternating Current Reactor Protection System Power Supply (8.4.7)
This concerns with the reactor trip system power supply system and the applicant committed to the generic resolutions or to expedite their license the surveillance requirement which were applied to Hatch 2.
(19) Spent Fuel Cooling and Cleanup Systems (9.1.3) (3.2.1)
The spent fuel cooling system and its secondary side cooling. system are non-seismic systems which do not meet the guidelines of Regulatory Guides 1.13 and 1.29.
We require a seismic analysis of these systems and/or justifications to show that the calculated doses would not exceed 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines following a cooling system. failure.
The applicant has submitted its failure analysis of these systems and
{
we are reviewing them.
(20) Equipment and Floor Drainage System (9.3.2)
Sufficient information has not been provided on the ability of the level monitoring and alarm systems to meet the single failure criterion with regard to protection from flooding in safety-related areas, or on the capability of the systems to handle flooding due to pipe breaks.
o (21) Control Room Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning System (9.4.1)
The isolation of the control room area from radicactive materials i
and toxic gases does not meet the single failure criterion in that both motor operated isolation valves receive a signal to close from the same control circuit.
A failure of that control circuit could result in radioactivity or toxic gases entering the control area.
1 (22) Fire Protection (9.5)
We have not completed our review of' fire protection.*
(23) Diesel Generator Auxiliary Systems (9.6.3)
(a) The Standard, ANSI N-195, is not referenced in-the FSAR in accordance with Section 9.5.4 of.SRP.
We require conformance j
f to this standard-or justification for.any deviations from this standard.
(b) The diesel engine starting system is designed with sufficient air capacity for only 3 starts.
We require at least 5 starts as stated in Section 9.5.6 of SRP.
(24) Initial Test Programs (14)
(a)
Sufficient information has not been provided to conclude that testing will be performed in accordance to Regulatory Guides 1.20, 1.68, 1.68.2 and 1.80.
(b) We have not completed our review of test plans for systems and components to mitigate ATWS.
(c) Responses to our positions were not satisfactorily and additional-
,(
information is required.
(d) Additional information is required for 30 preoperational tests and 16 startup tests abstracts.
1 i
- This iten was not identified to the applicant as an open item I
l
. --4 c...--.
~..._,e
,m-
d' (25) Technical Specifications (16)
We have not completed our review of Technical Specifications.*
(26) Financial Qualifications (20)
We have not completed our financial qualifications review.*
-w I
8(
l l
i
I, EtlCLOSURE 2 Status of SER Input From Branches Branch Stat";
Instrumentation & Control SER input due Decenber 29, 1978 Mechanical Engineering SER input due December 29, 1978 Containment System SER input due December 29, 1978 Reactor Systems SER input due December 29, 1978 Quality Assurance Received Initial Test Program but for other sections we are awaiting additional information from applicant.
Auxiliary Systems Received inout, but in compliance with Codes and Codes Case Section, we are awaiting information from applicant.
Materials Engineering Received input, but the applicant has recently submitted input requesting exemptions from Appendix G & H.
Analysis Received draft SER input.
Accident Analysis Received portions of SER input; however, awaiting.for missile review and emergency planning.
Safeguard Input by December 22, 1978
\\
%