ML20071G124
| ML20071G124 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1978 |
| From: | Teh-Chiun Su Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071F735 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-93-375 NUDOCS 7812210315 | |
| Download: ML20071G124 (2) | |
Text
- --
~
h.g,h4 U
i Cf.C S
.n8
/
/
r NOTE FOR:
W. Butler. Chtet, Containment Systems Branch. 055 FR94:
T. M. Su, Contatrament Systems Bronch, DSS
SUBJECT:
STATUS OF 5HORD144 OPEN ITDG Per your request, I have prepared the following summary of the status of the Shoreham open items other than LOCA and SRY related areas.
1.
Steam Bypass The applicant has taken two exceptions from our branch technical position for steam bypass (manual spray actuation and testing requirements). With respect to the exception of manual rather than automatic actuation of the contatnment spray, the appitcant via a letter dated September 8,1978, submitted an analysis to support its position on manual actuation. The results of the analysts show that the operator will han 32 minutes to actuate the contairenent spray.
This time frame barely meets our acceptaole Itmit of 30 minutes, as we indicated in the May 10, 1978 meeting i
held in Bethesda.
We will review the analysts to ensure that the assumptions used in the analysts are conservative. Based on our current work loads, I expect to complete the review by mid-January, 1979.
With respect to the second exception of leakage testing criterion..
the appiteant also submitted an analysts and the associated rationale to demonstrate that there is conservative margin between their proposed testing performance and capaht11ty. Again, I plan to complete the revtew by std-January, 1979.
2.
Containment Isolation System and Leakage Testine We have had discussions with the applicant to resolve this issue.
The last meeting we had uns on September 22,1978 As a result of the meeting, the applicants recognized that additional inforsation 1s needed to juslify their design. We are us1 ting for thi: 1nformetio
Contact:
T. M. Su 492 1711, CSS ne mm 3,,.,,, wcu.2 a.,,...................,......... ~..
7 gj2 2 iciyt[ X b N
N,,
1 et W. Butler
- CEL 6
- W8 3.
sacrificial Shield Pressure Analysis Based on the latest sutxnitted inforcation. w have perforr,ed our confimatory analysis. The result of the analysis indicated that the suimum calculated local pressurs is higher than the design pressure. We have had discussions with SEB to assess the stmeture's capability to acceenodata this load. SEB has issued a request for additional information. Unless there is new inforration regarding the input data for our pressure response analysis, we consider that we have canpleted our reytew effort in this arsa and will report our findings in the next supplement to the SER.
Oricir "*. -17ned ty John....'ruk T. M. Su Containr.wnt Systems Branch Division of Systams Safety cc: cd. Xudrick T. Su l
l oss:csBk Oss;csB3 oss:cs0
,i
.......itITMsu/mc JKudrick iY WBnler#
s I 2/ h /78.....I2L h6S.
I.2LdN 1
s.<, _,,......, _....
.