ML20072G791

Responds to ACRS 830216 Rept Re Applications for Cp. Review of Recommendation Will Be Submitted in SER Suppl Scheduled to Be Issued in Apr 1983

ML20072G791
Person / Time
Site:	Skagit
Issue date:	03/17/1983
From:	Goodwin E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Fraley R Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Shared Package
ML20072G792	List: ML20072G791
References
NUDOCS 8303290135
Download: ML20072G791 (1)

Text

e.

DISTRIBUTION:

. Central; File-

'T.

Rehm E. Case R. Vollmer

'NRC PDR V. Stello J. Funches SECY-83-1472

~

TSB R/F C. Michelson D. Eisenhut ED0 R/F ACRS R/F R. DeYoung R. Mattson P. Brandenburg (ED0-12804)

E. Goodwin R. Minogue T. Speis M. Garver (ED0-12804)

J. Carter J. Davis H. Thompson W. Dircks G. Cunningham J. N. Grace J. Roe H. Denton B. Snyder 11EMORAtlDU!l FOR: Raymond Fraley, Executive Director, ACRS FROM:

Edward F. Goodwin, Technical Assistant Technical Support Branch Planning and Program Analysis Staff, NRR

SUBJECT:

REPORT ON SKAGIT/HA!! FORD NUCLEAR PROJECT, UNITS 1 & 2 In a letter dated February 16, 1983, the ACRS provided its coments and recommendations following its review of the applications for a permit to construct Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project, Units 1 & 2.

This is to advise you that each of the recommendations is being considered by the staff and/or licensee and will be addressed in the staff's SER supplement scheduled to be issued in April 1983.

If the applicant informs the staff of substantial delay in starting construction, the staff will consult with the ACRS on the impact of such delays on safety-related regulatory requirements, hl Edward F. Goodwin, Technical Assistant Of# ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 8303290135 930217 PDR ADOCK 05000522 A

PDR

\\L h"

A x

\\

OFFICs )

S

....... ~.........

~ ~ ~ ~. - " -. *.

• ~ ~. " * " " " " " '

........odwi..n :

ego sunurus >

-..-~~---~~

.. - ~~~ --.-*

. 9.3/g3,,,,

_._.. _ _. J.

omre >

Nac ronu ata omeo) nacu ono OFFIClAL RECORD COPY uw e m-m 4

/JdC FOS sa nco UNITED STATES gy

_8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

4y WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

\\...../

, o se MEMORANDUM FOR:

Raymond Fraley, Executive Director, ACRS i

FROM:

Edward F. Goodwin, Technical Assistant Technical Support Branch Planning and Program Analysis Staff, NRR

SUBJECT:

REPORT ON SKAGIT/HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT, i

UNITS 1 & 2 I

In a letter dated February 16, 1983, the ACRS provided its comments and recomendations followNg its re' iew of the applications for a pennit to v

construct Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project, linits 1 & 2.

This is to advise you that each of the recommendations is being considered by the staff and/or licensee and will be addressed in the staff's SER supplement scheduled to be issued in April 1983.

If'the applicant informs the staff of substantial l

delay in starting construction, the staff will consult with the ACRS on the impact of such delays on safety-related regulatory requirements.

9C

/L Edward F. Goodwin, Technical Assistant Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

?

?

t I

t e

N

)

c

FROM.

ACTION CONTROL DATES CONTROL NO.

unS

4. a. nay wu/ss 12804 DATE OF DOCUMENT 4

INTERIM REPLY f h TO:

_s

$m PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE him Falladim O/ WW24*

$i7p3 O Executive oiaEcToR ntE tOCATiON OTHER.

DESCRIPTION SLETTER O uEuo O REPORT O OrHER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS

.Acas Report ~en The Skagit/ManfM Nuclear Project, unfts I and 2 ASSIGNED TO DATE INFORMATION ROUTING Resten. WE!/16/43 Ofrcks Caw /Deseen SECT-83-1472

1. 88 1.

PPSS Goodwta U17/88_-Roh' 2.

Eisenhut Stelle 3.

Mattson luchelsen. 4,

$p gi Be W 5.

Thugson fNaegue 6.

Grace Davis 7, p 8Cunnfaghom

i. 1 3Centeel_Ft h N

NRC FORM 232 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS m)

PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL

~'

._w l

6 n.

}

.I>**

i M

6 c

! 3 m

O L

m

<h 0

g* !

5 9

D m

z R

i 3

4:

y w

8 E

2 N

oJB(3*j a

c I

U d'.4:

-?

gr 4

$ :5 E I I G

s e M.,:.

Og c g) @.g 7, o y o

ec c3 V

14,1 g

a.

a 9

00 5

5:

g u

1 o:

y;e I

h.

5 I

U D

5 E

5

=

2 u

e s

-4 E

s 1

N M

o o

t

=

E o

a C

C S

E

• 2 A

c c.*

C 4 3 E

.9 h

.E k

5

-$E e 0 -l, 2 1

5 7

3 5

v o

N

.! 634 7 k:

CE k

8 0

h h

y V

E g3 4 y

y D-U g e

a s a

o.

is

.e y

h o w u a.

s?

>E

.I O 3

)

a

>2 8

u-o

~

d

• y' J,

Q O

.t g

,5 V "

}.:g lo j E

.2 O

a

's

• e i

R..

52 is I 6 6 8 us, e

j gj g

~

EO O

O a a a w

w w w f

o l

<<a.-

O

[5 0 e

i!

1..

/ 'g"4

• 6~

4'o UNITED STATES g

8 i

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E

,E ADV!SORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS O

g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 February 16, 1983 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chai rman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

ACRS REPORT ON THE SKAGIT/HANFORD NUCLEAR PROJECT, UNITS 1 AND 2 During its 274th meeting, February 10-12, 1983, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards completed its review of the application of the Puget Sound Power and Light Company, the Pacific Power and Light Company, the Washington Water Power Company, and the Portland General Electric Company (the Applicants) for a permit to construct the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project, Units 1 and 2.

The Puget Sound Power and Lfgnt Company will be responsible for the design, construction, and operation of the station.

This project had originally been planned for a site on the Skagit River and was reviewed in that context by the ACRS during its 211th meeting, November 3-5, 1977.

The Comittee concluded that the Skagit Nuclear Power P roj ect, Units 1 and 2, "can be constructed with reasonable assurance that they can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public" in its letter to NRC Chairman, Joseph M. Hendrie, dated November 18, 1977.

In 1980 the Applicants decided to move the project to a site on the Hanford Reservation, and the project name was changed in 1981 from the

~

Skagit Nuclear Power Project to the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project.

Taking into account this new site, the request to construct this plant was-again reviewed during a Subcommittee meeting in Richland, Wasnington, on January 24-25, 1983.

THI-related requirements and other matters of interest were also reviewed.

A visit to the new site was made by members of the Subcom-l mittee on January 24, 1983.

l The Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project includes two 3800 MW(t) boiling water reactors of the BWR-6 type, each housed in a Mark III containment.

The design of the Skagit Nuclear Project is similar to that of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 on which the Comittee reported in its operating license letter of August 18, 1982.

The NSSS for the Skagit/Hanford plant is similar to,' but not identical with, the GESSAR-251 reference design.

The Committee reported on the G ESS AR-251 design in its letter of December 17, 1976.

Because of the di f ferences in design and because GESSAR-251 had not received preliminary design approval when the Skagit application was originally submitted, the XA CopyjasJeen.NS@

gg fiOf 2

/,

~

I Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino February 16,'1983 l

NRC Staff made a custom review of the Skagit plant.

Except as required by differences between the original and present sites -- including items such as the water supply, the temperature and humidity ranges of the atmosphere, and a foundation on soil rather than rock --_ and changes in regulatory require-ments between 1977 and 1982, the - present plant design is essentially the same as that considered originally.

The Project will be located on the Hanford Reservation in Benton County, Washington, approximately 5 miles west of the Washington Public, Power Supply System Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2) and 4.8 miles northwest of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF).

It is 8 miles west of the Columbia River, 7 miles north of the Yakima River at Horns Rapid Dam, and 12 miles nnrthwest of the city of North Richland.

The exclusion area boundary is at a-radius _ of one' mile.

The low population zone has a radius of 4 miles, which includes no residents.

The 10 mile radius includes a resident population of 357.

In addition, about 5000 persons are employed at the WNP-2 and FFTF sites.

The-nearest center of population is Richland, Washington with a population of 33,578 (1980 census).

i The schedule for 'the start of construction has not yet been established.

In addition.to the need for receiving a construction permit, the start of con-struction will depend on the decision by the regional power planning council a

i to include the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project as a power resource in their regional power plan.

It is also dependent on the state of - the economy.

The NRC Staff has asked the Applicants to perform additional core drilling to determine if capable faults are associated with the May Junction Monocline, which,- at its closest point, is about 4 miles nortn of the site.

We agree'

.with this recommendation, and the Applicants have committed to the additional core drilling before any major construction work is initiated.

Although it is not expected that such subsurface invest lgations will resolve small f aults with accumulated vertical displacements less tnan about 20 feet, we l

believe that such faults would not present an earthquake hazard as large as that already taken into account in the seismic design.

The Applicants have designed for a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) of 0.35g, ~ which is signifi-cantly higher than the SSE of 0.259 deemed acceptable for the WPPSS-2 plant located only 5 miles away.

i The Applicants have committed to perform a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) to examine core and containment heat removal reliability.

The PRA will include the, potential effects of external

• events such as earthquakes, floods, and other environmental phenomena.

The results may be useful in determining whether changes or design improvements are needed.

f The ACRS believes that, if due consideration is given to the matters noted, the Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project, Units 1 and 2 can be constructed with reasonable assurance that they can be operated without undue risk to the I

i

~, _ _, _ _ _ _., _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _... _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - _

,-[,,

Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino February 16, 1983 health and safety of the public.

Should there be significant changes in design or regulatory requirements before the actual start of construction, the Committee would expect to review this application again.

Sincerely, 2

J. J. Ray Y Chairman

References:

1.

Puget Sound Power and Light Company, "Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project Preliminary Safety Analysis Report," Volumes 1-12 and Amendments 1-29.

2.

Puget Sound Power and Light Company, "Skagit/Hanford Nuclear Project Application for Site Certification / Environmental Report," Volumes 1-4 and Amendments 1-8.

3.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Safety Evaluation Report, Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2," NUREG-0309, dated September 1977, and Supplement No. 2, dated October 1981, and Supplement No. 3, dated December 1982.

+

- - - - - - - - - - - - -