ML20198E971
| ML20198E971 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1975 |
| From: | Rosa F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Moore V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1077 NUDOCS 8605280373 | |
| Download: ML20198E971 (5) | |
Text
.
uso
- aug z s V. A. Moore, Assistant Director for LWRs, Group 2, RL THRU: Thomas A. Ippolito, Chief. EI&CS Branch, TR SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 TO Tile SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT - WASHItiGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM, UNITS 1 and 4 Plant Name: WPPSS 1 and 4 Docket ilumbers: 50-460/513 Licensing Stage: Construction Permit Milestone Number: 27-22 Responsible Branch and Project Leader: LWR 2-3, T. Cox Technical Review Branch Involved: EI&CS Branch Description of Review: SSER Ho. 2 Requested Completion Date: July 3,1975 Review Status: Complete The attached Supplecent tio. 2 to tne Safety Evaluation Report reflects the results of our review of additional information submitted by the applicant for the resolution of outstanding items. Our review covers information submitted up to and including Amendment No.19, b.
Faust Rosa, Section Leader Electrical, Instrumentation and Control Systens Branch Division of Technical Review Office of Huclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated above cc:
S. Hanauer R. Heineman A. Glanbusso V. Stello A. Schwencer T. Cox
- CONCURRENCE NEEDED ONLY ON SECTION T. Ippolito 7.7 (fire analysis)
D. Basdekas W. !!cDonald DISTRIBUTION
/DOCKETFILES EIC READING ll.LEFAVE V. BENAR0YA
' NRR READINu F. ROSA P. MATTHEWS TR APC g g APCgB,:,TS **
AP EIC:TRg,4,g ipr _
- r's.,
ienroya YAlppolito*
llLif[v#'
Pflatthews DBasdekas;mg FRosa 6
7// 7/75 7//7/75 7/14/75 7//[/75 7/ /75 7/Q/75
_........... ~..
8605280373 750721 PDR ADOCK 05000460 E.
G E L
~
~
c WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM UNITS 1 and 4 Docket Nos. 50-460/513
' SUPPLEMENT N0. 2 TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT
-7.2 Reactor Protection' System.(RPS)
There has been no substantial change in the status of the RPS-II generic review as reported in the SER. The RPS remains an outstanding and unreviewed item.
7.3.4 Transfer from Injection to the Recirculation Mode of ECCS Operation The applicant has submitted additional information substantiating that the electrical, instrumentation and controls design required to accomplish the transfer from the injection to the recirculation mode of ECCS operation meets our requirements as stated in the SER. Specifically, three Borated Water Storage Tank (BUST) water level sensors will be provided.
Each sensor will supply signals to two redundant and independent 2/3 coincidence logics, one for each sump suction valve. Analog indication is provided in the control room for each BWST level sensor. We found this acceptable and we consider this item resolved.
7.4.1 Decay Heat Removal (DHR) System We requested the applicant to provide detailed information substantiating that adequate separation exists within each train A and B of the motive and control power cabling supplying each pair i
~
(;
e e
. _ ~., _. _... _ _
i i
.i i
j of the DHR valves. installed in series in the two legs of the DHR suction lines.
We reviewed the information submitted and we find the applicant's commitment to provide adequate separation within
~
an individual train acceptable for purposes of assuring that a single electrical failure would not result in the simultaneous inadvertent opening of two serially installed valves. Furthe rmore,
although the physical layout information submitted in Amendments i
No.18 and 19 indicates that sufficient separation may be attainable, the details of the final design and final physical layout will have to be reviewed when submitted at.the FSAR stage of review.
We consider this item resolved.
7.7 Compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.75 We asked the applicant to submit additional information in order to resolve our concerns with respect to compliance with the provisions of Regulatory Guide 1.75, as amended.
We reviewed the additional information submitted by the applicant in Amendment No.18 and we find that not all of our concerns have been resolved. Specifically: a)Theapplicanthas made the commitment to submit the results of testing and analysis to satisfy our concerns with respect to Section 5.6.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.75, Internal Separation Criteria, by the end of 1975.
b) Section 5.8 of Regulatory Guide 1.75, Sensors and Sensor to Process Cor.nections, is not totally. satisfied. The applicant has
.i e e
.,--.-.,,-.y
~.--v--_
~. - - -, -
I e
. made the commitment to submit test data to justify an exemption to Regulatory Guide 1.75 with respect to dual element RTDs. c) In order to assure compliance with Section 5.1.1.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.75, we asked the applicant to perform an analysis to demonstrate that a fire in the most restricted area of one of the tunnels underneath the fuel transfer canal would not jeopardize i
safety.. We reviewed the analysis' performed by the applicant as submitted in Amendment tio.18, and we find it acceptable.
l We conclude that the design will conforn to Regulatory Guide 1.75, conditioned on the acceptability of the test data and analyses committed to above, and is acceptable for the CP review. The adequacy of these test data and analyses will be verified during the post-CP period. We consider this a closed item.
7.8 Environmental Qualification Program The applicant has made the core 11tr.ent to develop an environmental qualification program for systems and coc?orlents other than those supplied by BLU. The program will include provisions for meeting all the requirements of IEEE Std 323-1974, including aging qualification. We expect that this item will be of continuing concern end review during the post-CP period, and will be resolved l
at the FSAR stage of review. We consider this item resolved for purposes of the CP stage review.
8.2 Offsite Power Systers We have reviewed the additiona~1 ir.formscion subtritted by the applicant describing' design changes and additions which 8
4
-4 8
.g
+
,m...,,,n
~,,
-,-..v
-.-.<r~---
n-=--~
~~'-
r
~.,-
. s t
'. o k-eliminated the aerial crossings of'the 500 KV and 230 KV trans-mission lines at the Ashe switchyard, and upgraded the fault clearing provisions in the 230 KV switchyard by the installation of additional breakers. We find the revised design acceptable,
~
and consider this item resolved.
O e
O I
e s
=,
9 6 <
e 9