ML20073P180
| ML20073P180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1983 |
| From: | Bouchey G WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| To: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0800, RTR-NUREG-800 GO3-83-342, NUDOCS 8304250054 | |
| Download: ML20073P180 (7) | |
Text
.t Washington Public Power Supply System Box 1223 Elma, Washington 98541 (206)482-4428 Docket No. 50-508 April 20,1983 G03-83-342 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ATTN: Mr. G. W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Consnission Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
NUCLEAR PROJECT 3 SUPPLEENTAL INFORMATION ON CONFORMNCE OF WNP-3 TO STANDARD REVIEW PLAN (March 1983)
Reference:
a) Letter #G03-82-1015, G. D. Bouchey to J. D. Kerrigan, dated October 6,1982.
Reference a) transmitted amendment #1 to the WNP-3 FSAR. This amendment con-tained the initial phase of the WNP-3 Review for conformance with the Stan-dard Review Plan (SRP) NUREG-0800, required by 10CFR50.34(g).
In those cases where differences between the WNP-3 design criteria and the SRP acceptance criteria were identified in the initial Supply System review, a schedule was provided detailing when the bases would be presented for con-cluding that the WNP-3 design criteria are in compliance with the Commission Regulations.
Presented herewith is the material for which commitments were made for the month of March. Included are marked up FSAR pages to show the changes which will be incorporated into a subsequent amendment.
In those cases where exception is taken to the SRP acceptance criteria a reference is provided to the FSAR section where further information is provided.
If necessary, addi-tional infomation will be added to the appropriate FSAR section indicated on the marked up FSAR pages.
0 1 8304250054 830420 PDR ADOCK 05000508 A
gy Mr. G. W. Knighton Page.2 G03-83-342 SUPPLEMENTAL'INFORMATION ON CONFORMANCE OF WNP-3 TO STANDARD REVIEW PLAN (March 1983)
In certain. instances, following a detailed review, we have been able to con-clude based on information presented in the FSAR that the WNP-3 design cri-teria do, in. fact, conform to the SRP acceptance criteria. For these cases, with the exception of a change to the FSAR conformance review table (Table 1.8-3), no further change will be necessary.
1 If you require further information for clarification, the Supply System point of contact for this matter is Mr. K. W. Cook, Licensing Project Manager (206/482-4428 ext. 5436).
Sincerely,
/
G. D. Bouchey, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Programs AJM/ss Attachments:
cc:
D. J. Chin - Ebasco NY0 N. S. Reynolds - D&L J. A. Adams - NESCO D. Smithpeter - BPA A. A. Tuzes - CE A. Vietti - NRC Ebasco - Elma j
WNP-3 Files - Richland l
l
\\
[
f, J
'd
()
WMP-3 FSAR TABLE 1.8-3 NUREC - 0800 NBC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN COMPLIANCE YES NO N/A
- ""?.***
SRP/ACC4PTANCE CRITERIA 10.2.3 Turbine Disk Integrity Sev.1 - July 1981 (conc'd) 6.
The combined stresses of low pressure turbine disk at design overspeed N
due to centrifugal forces, interference fit, and thermal gradients
/
.G should not exceed 0.75 of the minimum specified yield strength of the material, or 0.75 of the measured yield strength in the weak
/
g f direction of the materials if appropriate tensile tests have been
/
performed on the actual disk material.
/
The turbine shaft bearings should be able to withstand any combination c.
of the normal operating loads, anticipated transients, and, accidents resulting in turbine trip.
d.
The natural critical frequencies of the turbine shaft assemblies I
existing between zero speed and 20E overspeed should be contro11 in the design and operation so as to Cause no distress to the unit during operation.
/
The turbine disk design should facilitate inservice inspection of e.
all high stress regions, including bores and keyways, without the need for removing the disks from the shaft, f e
5.
Inservice Inspection
/
The appilcant's inservice inspection rdram is acceptable if in compliance with the following criteria:
The inservice inspection progre'm for the steam turbine assembly should x
provide assurance that disp flaws that might lead to brittle failure of a disk at speeds up to des 6n speed will be detected. The inservice inspec-f tion program for the tiirbine assembly should include the following:
Disassemblyof the turbine at approximately 10 year intervals, during plant shutdown coincidi with the inservice inspection schedute as required by A9E ler and Pressure Wessel Code g
Section XI, and complete inspection of all normally inaccessible a
ris, such as coupilngs, coupling bolts, turbine shafts, low-S l
pressure turbine blades, low pressure disks, and high pressure rotors. This inspection should consist of visual, surface, and a
volumetric examinations, as required.
,F A
k5
.t s:
s
'l WN P-3 FSAR TABLE 1.8-3 NUREC - 0800 NRC STANDARD REVIEW PLAN COMPLIANCE SRP/ ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA YES NO N/A RFMARKS 10.3 Main Steam Supply System Rev. 2 - July 1981
,w ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
/
Acceptability of the design of the MS$5, as described in the appitcant's safety analysis report (SAR), is based on specific general design criteria and regulatory 7
g Ago (e.- d h f-guides.
m Nc creal.t a b c M3
.% design of the M555 is acceptable if the intgrated design of the system is U gg3 g n >ttf #
\\
O g t-
\\
in accordance with the following criteria:
C#,.
MNq65 3. n (_ c. 49 1
t
/
1.
General Design Criterion 2, as related to safety-related portions of the x
C N system being capable of withstanding the effects of natural phenomena such 5'1N g3 g ged ec$ OP as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods, and the positions of Sc s 5 m '
C--
1 the following:
\\ c (_IMd.m f^-
F Regulatory Guide 1.29, as related to the seismic design classification x
T s tr uCN WO*
y of system components, Positions C.1.a. C.I.e C.1.f. C.2, and C.3.
g te c C* S a.
3 b.
Regulatory Guide 1.117 as related to the protection of structures, x
systems, and components important to safety from the effects of tornado
\\
e missiles, Appendix Positions 2 and 4.
\\
2.
General Design Criterion 4, with respect to safety-related portions of x
the system being capable of withstanding the effects of external missiles
'[
and internally generated missiles, pipe whip, and jet impingement forces associated with pipe breaks, and the position of Regulatory Guide 1.115 as related to the protection of structures, systems, and components impor-tant to safety from the effects of turbine missiles, Position C.I.
/
3.
General Design Criterion 5, as related to the capability of shared systems I see remark (1)
/
(1) There are no shared systems and and cosponents toportant to safety to perform required safety functions.
/
components at WNP3.
4.
General Design Criterion 34, as related to the system function of transfer-g k
ring residual and sensible heat from the reactor system in indirect cycle plants, and the following:
o k
The positions in Branch Technical Position R58 5-1 as related to the g
=,
a.
/
design requirements for residual heat removal.
4
-. _ N
/
i f
' - - ~
b.
Issue Number 1 of NUREG-0138 as related to credit being taken for
.******g(h (2) Where differences exist between the WNP-3 design g
y Q
all valves downstream of the main steam isolation valves (MSIV) to criteria and the acceptance criteria identified la
\\
~
6 limit blowdown of a second steam generator in the event of a steam this SRF, the bases for concluding that the WNP-3 a
E line break upstream of the MSIV.
desisa criteria are in compliance with the Commission's #
2 regulations will be provided by March 1983.
O A
f o
v4 9
es
^.
[,
{-
s
.,I wur-2 FSAR TAsLE 1.e-3 NMEC - OMO NRC STANDARD RrvirW rLAN i
c0McLTAnCE gyp 33g3 ygg y3 g/g Ser/ACCtrTANCE CSITEe!A e.3.1 A-C Power systems (Onette) e.v. 2. July Ipot (Cont'd) a A preventive malatenance program shall be provfded which (3) encompasses investigettve testing of components which have a history of repeated me1 functioning and a plan for the replacement of these components which require constant ettentlen and repair with other products of preven reliablifty.
hapetr and estatenance proceshsres shell provide for e The Generator Centrol Panel and Ilucitatien peel were qualf fled x
(4) finel egulpment check prior to en actual start-run-leed by the onshined vibretion effect of seimmic and service vibration e.
p e r
,t le the response etc.) and all velves are in the proper positten. The test of the Diesel Generator by the following opproach; procedere(s) shall empitcitly state that egen satisfactory spectnse curves for seismic and service vibration were separately test completten the diesel memorator unit shall be returned to a res % automatic stan ey service under the peersted at the actsiting locations of the above panels.
De crmbised control of the control reen operater.
Encept for seneers and other equipment that must be response spectnam curves of seismic and service vibration were th a s. me rh (t) i.
(5) directly mounted en the engine er essectated pfpfas thecentrolsandmonitoringinstruentsshallbeInstaIIedon as an iryut action to dynamically qualify the above two panels, there.
vF a
standi floor mounted panaf located on a vfbretton fore, the panel ammited devices such as sensors and monitoring device M If the floor is not vibretten free the panel shall were demonstrated to withstant the vibretica effect induced by seismic to equipped with vibretten asunts, General Sosie Criterten 18, se reisted to the testability of the and service vibretion of the Diesel Generator, 5.
z eastte a-c power system, and the guidelines of aeguietory cuide 1.113,
bee aise IEEE 338), as related to the capabflity for testing the onette e-c peuer system.
6.
The destp requiremsate for an onette e-c power seeply for systems K
covered oy General Destp Crfteria 33, 34).38, 41 and 44 are r
encespassed in Generel mest y Crfterten 1 Senere1 Deste Crfterien 50 as reisted to the desip of contatment F
7.
X electrical penetrettens conbining circuits of the a-c peuer system and the puldelines of Regulatory Guide 1.63 (see else IEEE 317) as reisted to the capabiltty of the electric penetretten essembifes to withstand without less of mechanical Integrity, the maximum o
possible fault current versus time condition that ceufd accur given G
single rendum failure of circuit overload protective devices located 2c in circuits of the enette e-c power systems.
h 2l.
.t.o$
\\
h N.~'
t w)
(a/
w/
WNP-3 FSAR TABLE 1.8-3 NUREG - 0800
,a NRC STABDARD REVIEW FLAN COMPLIANCE TES NO N/A RIMARKS SRF/ ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 10.4.9 Auxiliary Feedwater systen (FWR) Bev. 2 - July 1981 (Cont'd)
~
%y In meeting these criteria, the recosamendations of NUREG-0611 and 0635 bT (1) Where differences exist between the WNF-3 design shall also be met. An acceptable ANS should have an unreif ability in criteria and the acceptance criteria identified in the range of 10
- to 10 s per demand based on an analysis using methods this $RP, the bases for concluding that the WNP-3 and data presented in NUREG-0611 and NUREG-0635. Compensating factors desisacriteriaareincompliancewiththeconnission'/s such as other methods of accomplishing the safety functions of the ANS regulations w111 be provided by March 1983.
s' 1
or other reliable methods for cooling the reactor core during abnomal conditions may be considered to justify a larger unavailability of the UUC"5 + " -
"W5'
( 0 rh e.
La ev P ' 3 ci e 5 *'a a P C C N'""
es 'i ck t.ci s s c'( N u r e s - o k' W 6.
General Desfon criterion 45, as related to design provisfons made to x
permit periodic inservice inspection of system components and equipment.
^
- Y'9A S<kCI b F
7.
General Design Criterion 46, as related to design provisions made to x
permit appropriate functional testing of the system and components to deder.p
,gg g
%lg ;
assure structural integrity and leak-tightness, operability and perform-N ' l ' h
- i ' *- 3 ance of active components, and capability of the int rated system to Feed e er-53ne-function as intended during normal shutdown, and ac dent conditions.
In meeti this criteria the technical specifications should specify that g5 ? e r. t h e. r-c o u. r * '" * ^ *
- O ""IB5'*'
b 3-the mont y ANS pump test shall be performed on a sta red test basis U
to reduce the likelihood of leaving more than one pump n a test noc'e g q g p. 4 3 s3 m-i y he AF5 C # ^ ** *j' following the tests.
c4 two a o pee-c.e o t cam p c 'I'Y T h o+ A " '
i n d e p e a d c a t yte m s d. W e r *s t. pop c t- -3 c a r L E 3 0M S u p /' I 'j redandoc3 ro e n s u - C-Tw c.
r bM of (eedtoatec to c hher c,-
5 -t e a m ge n e r-a+o r s
'n 1hc c_ g o t of on m;&nt nns o n3 s. nn te nW' cc n' ;>on e a t 8 a ; t u r e..
e ipm~14m h;LL.i e
wh so.a.n.AAs n~n.:Me:lh sW E*
AF.S mLm sal wul H+ rs c~~~A*S*.s d N
mc ou 4 co c.Ilweva kml:EI:k n.r,a m La p t.r.-L
, %&f u et ow.ai, sq A:s % aphE %
4 ceLA wm,y ul7 L:shee tgw;he.k. a- ~
- p2 11ls *~ hsl2 n
a, w.
. s.tety Lbli Llwl
.m m n m,m.
r
WNP-3 FSAR TABLE 1.8-3 Nt@EC - 0800 NRC STANDARD REVIFW PL AN COMPLIANCE SRP/ ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA YES NO N/A OM.
/V' 11.1 Source Terms Rev. 2 - July 1981 4
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA N
ETSB will accept the source terms used as the design basis for expected releases if the following Commission regulations are met:
1.
10 CFR Part 20 as it relates to radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted I
areas.
2.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I as it relates to the numerical guides for design x
y objectives and limiting conditions for operation to meet the criterion "as low as is reasonably achievable" given in the Appendix I, 3.
General Design Criterion 60 as it relates to the radioactive waste manage-ment systems being designed to control releases of radioactive materials g
to the environment.
j I
The requirement of the Commission regulations identified above are met by using the regulatory positions contained in the following regulatory guides:
Regulatory Guide 1.110 as it relates to the cost-benefit analysis x See Remark (1)
(1) Refer to FSAR subsections 11.2.3 and t1.3.3.
a.
r for radioactive waste management systems and equipment, e
,/
h b.
Regulatory Guide 1.112 as it relates to the method of calcytating g
release of radioactive materials in effluents from nucleat power pl.nts, c.
Regulatory Guide 1.140 as it relates to the design testing and main-g tenance of normal ventilation exhaust systemv at nuclear pod r plants.
Specific criteria necessa y to meet the relevant regoIrements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50 are as follows:
1 The parameters used to calculate primary and secondary coolant concentra-g tions for PWRs are consistent with,those given in NUREG-0017 (Ref. 1).
{
The parameters used to Calculate <oolant concentrations for SWRs are consistent with those give ridVREG-0016 (Ref. 2).
2.
All normal and potential sources of radioactive effluent delineated in x
o subsection I are considered.
F
/
3.
For each source of Ilquid and gaseous waste considered in subsection 1.1, I
T the volume pend concentrations of radioactive material given for normal operation'and anticipated operational occurrences are consistent with l
g thos given in NUREG-0016 or NUREG-0017.
4.
contamination factors for inplant control measures used to reduce gaseous g
effluent releases to the environment, such as iodine removal systems and I
high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters for building ventilation l
l e
o eC
_