ML20198G386
| ML20198G386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington Public Power Supply System |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1976 |
| From: | Ross D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Deyoung R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1515 NUDOCS 8605290530 | |
| Download: ML20198G386 (2) | |
Text
~
g-4 U' NITED STATES
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.e g
. WASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5 g
a
%,. e... p$
pg 5 816 Docket Nos. 50-460/513
~
Richard C. DeYoung, Assistant Director for LWRs, DPH RESPONSE TO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST "WNP-1, 4--REVIEW POST-CP RESPONSES TO SAFETY REVIEW ITEMS 2 & 3 IN LETTER TROM WPPSS" (TAR-3700)
Plant Name:
WNP-1, 4 Docket Nos.: 50-460 and 50-513 Responsible Branch & Project Leader:
LWR-1, T. Cox Systems Safety Branch Involved: Reactor Systems Branch
~
Review Status:
Complete As reques'ted, Reactor Systems Branch has reviewed Items 2 and 3 of
~
the April 2, 1976 letter from WPPSS which addressed outstanding safety review items. Our comments are enclosed.
Item 3 of the subject letter deals also with containment isolation requirements, an area that is not under the cognizance of the Reacter Systems Branch. The proposal discussed under Item 3 might result in l
a departure from General Design Criterion 55 which requires an isolation valve outside reactor containment. Whether the isolation requirements of CDC are met by this proposal sh_ould be reviewed bv_
Containment Systems _._
- N-..
h Denwood F. Ross, Jr., Assistant Director l
for Reactor Jafety
' Division of Systems Safety l
Enclosure:
- Comments on Safety Review Items 2 & 3
.ce:
S. Hanauer
(
R. Heineman D. Ross J. Stolz l
., T. Cox' i
T. Novak l
U. Minners 1
R. Fluegge 8605290530 760526 PDR ADOCK 05000460 A
PDR L
e ENCLOSURE
~
'~~ ~ ~
Cocqents on Safety Review Items 2 & 3 in WPPSS Letter Dated April 2, 1976 2.
ECCS-FAC Analysis for Partial Loop Operation We find acceptable the applicant's commitment in PSAR Amendment 20 to provide a Technical Specification limitation prohibiting partial loop operation until this analysis has been approved by the staff.
s s
3.
Justification for Manual Operation During Long-Term Cooling After reviewing the proposed modification to the system design, we would find it acceptable to manually preset the bypass valves to
~
provide a flow of 40 gpm before startup in lieu of adjusting the
- valves immediately before long-term cooling if,the applicant can provide sufficient detailed information as specified below-(1) The detailed hydraulic calculations to enable the staff to review independently the calenlated, flow rates through the branches of the low pressure injection pump suction piping to determine the feasibility of the proposal, and
(
(2) A detailed preoperational test pro.cedure must be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed modification.
The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed preoperational test provides adequate assurance that the system will perform as required during post-LOCA long-term cooling.
The applicant must also provide a test procedure that permits periodic
,- testing of the flow through the bypass line to ensure that the
' valve position adjustment is set to provide the required flow rate.
e 9
0 e
e W
.