ML20198G778

Summary of 750529 Meeting W/Util,United Engineers & Constructors & B&W in Bethesda,Md to Discuss Applicant Response to Outstanding Issues,Including HPI low-pressure Injection Alignment.Agenda & List of Attendees Encl

ML20198G778
Person / Time
Site:	Washington Public Power Supply System
Issue date:	06/10/1975
From:	Cox T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-WNP-1072 NUDOCS 8605290764
Download: ML20198G778 (15)

Text

-

4 M 1 C T3 Docket Nos'. : 50-460 and 50-513 AFTLICCT: WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS)

FACILITY : WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT 3 ONE AND FOUA (WNP-1,4)

SUMMARY

OF MEETING TO DISCUSS OUTSTANDING ISSUES On May 29, 1975, representatives of WPPSS, United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C), Babcock and Wilcox (B&W), and. the NRC staff met in Bethesda, Maryland.

The meeting was held at the staff's request to discuss applicant responses to several outstanding issues. Applicant responses discussed were documented in a letter to the staff dated May 20, 1975. A meeting agenda and attendance list are attached (Attachments 1 and 2).

A summary of the meeting discussed is asafollows:

HPI/LPI Alignment,

Applicant response was a description and discussion of the required sequence of operator actions to perform the alignment of HPI and LPI pumps, including times required to complete individual manual actions and the cumulative elapsed time for the alignment. This was in response to the staff require-ment in Section 7.3.4 of the SER. The staff requested that the applicant include, in the PSAR, a commitment to demonstrate that the LPI pumps will operate continuously at the mini-flow rate expected for postulated small breaks, where the pumps are discharging to a shut-off head. The applicant agreed to supply this commitment.

D. Basdekas of the staff, asked if it were true that an operator's failure to perform the realignment of the HPI and LPI pumps might result in the loss of both HPI pumps. The applicant's response was that this was possible.

B&W stated that a third EEI pump was avial'able in that event, if needed.

D. Basdekas pointed out that the conseq6ences of the postulated operator error had not been analyzed.

B&W explained that the operator's decision to align HPI and LPI pumps is made based on the observed LPI flow rate prior to automatic switchover of ECCS pump suction from the BWST to the emergency sump. The operator is trained to open a cross-connect between LPI discharge and HPI suction if 7; ~

LPI flow rate is less than 900 gpm per injection train. The operator is p

8605290764 750610 DR ADOCK 05000460 PDR

. instructed to take this action, if necessary, within one hour af ter the postulated LOCA. This one hour time limit would effect alignment at least 23 minutes prior to depletion of the BWST. B&W said that there are control room safety grade alarms on LPI flow less than 900 gpm, BWST low level and low-low level.

R. Baer and W. Lanning of the staff stated that they would evaluate the applicant's response and issue either an acceptance or modified staff position within a few days.

Regulatory Guide 1.75 D. Basdekas, reporting for the staff on staff's evaluation of the applicant response, stated that the response was acceptable at the CP stage under the condition that certain information be supplied by the applicant in the early post CP period. WPPSS agreed to supply the following information by December 31, 1975, in fulfillment of this staff requirement:

1) Design details and analyses of the cable tunnel immediately below the refueling canal, demonstrating that, for postulated fires, essential safety system function will be protected in compliance with sections 5.1.1.1, 5.1.1.2, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 of IEEE 384-1974 as referenced in Regulatory Guide 1.75.

2) B&W qualification data showing the adequacy of the electrical separation provided by wire insulation and/or isolation buffer devices to justify the configuration (of wiring internal to cabinets) in accordance with paragraphs 4.3, 4.5, 4.6.lb and 5.6.2 of IEEE 384-1974.

3) Additional detail (over that given in May 20, 1975 letter to staff) regarding identification and functional specification of "small instrument transformers, small motors and other items of similarly low energy levels."

4) Design detaiIs, including sketches, describing the electrical and mechanical design of the dual-element RTD's and their installation, showing how l

physical and electrical independence are provided to assure function of essential safety signals, i

5) Information similar to item (4) above, but concerning the separate, redundant transmitters which are manifolded to a Gentile flow tube integral with the RC piping.

Offsite Power System WPPSS presented a discussion of the existing (PSAR Amendment 17) offsite power systen and changes proposed to meet staff concerns regarding i= mediate l

access to at least one of two offsite power supplies.

D. Basdekas of the staff l

l I

i

e agreed that with the following modifications to the design now documented through Amendment 17 of the PSAR, the offsite power system preliminary design would be acceptable at the CP stage of review:

1) The 230 kv transmission line, from the Ashe substation to the WNP-1,4 plants, will be a buried installation, eliminating four exposed crossings under the 500 kv lines near the Ashe substation.

2) The 230 kv portion of the Ashe substation will be modified to the preliminary design shown in Attachment _3.

The applicant's commitment to the above modifications will be documented in a PSAR amendment scheduled for June 16, 1975.

DHRS Design The applicant's May 20, 1975, response was discussed. The staff stated that DNRS letdown line relief valve design was acceptable based on the applicant's response (PSAR Amendment 12, December 1974) to Position No. 6.87.

This determination resolves one concern specified in Section 7.4 of the SER (issued May 2,1975). That concern was for protection of the DHRS on increasing RCS pressure (during startup) if valves in series in one line all failed to close automatically.

The key feature of the applicant's proposed DHRS design is the use of the same ESF bus for power for the two in-series valves in one of two parallel DHR lines, and the related statement by the applicant that no single failure can cause opening of all valves in one train when RC pressure is above an interlock setpoint.

l The staff noted that in order to consider the applicant's claim of physical l

and electrical independence preventing opening of both in-series valves simultaneously, detailed physical layouts of mechanical and electrical l

equipment would be required from the applicant for study by the staff. It was concluded that this issue remained outstanding pending current review by the staff and the submission of additional supporting data by the applicant.

Ultimate Heat Sink Although not on the planned meeting agenda WPPSS was able to report to the staff that they have completed re-analysis of plant equipment associated with the cooling water supplied by the emergency spray ponds. This i

evaluation showed that a return water temperature of 105'F, calculated with an assumed maximum 25% nozzle array efficiency as required by the staff, is acceptable for operation of the required safety-related equipment.

l I

i l

/

I l

l l

The applicant's ultimate heat sink design using the 25% efficiency is, as reported in the SER, acceptable to the staff, and this issue will i

be considered resolved.when adequately documented in a PSAR amendment.

l The schedule for this submittal will be established in the near future.

Odginal 315551((

Thomas H. Cox, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3 Division of Reactor Licensing i

Attachments:

1.

Meeting Agenda 2.

Attendance List 3.

230 kv Section of Ashe Substation x7886/ LWR 2-3

~~

..,,e.

f~

TCox:rmT N

~

.uR====*-

~

6/a7/75

~~"

~--

Foran ABC 318 (Rev. 9-53) AEQt 0240 1%' u. o; oovaRNM ENT PRINTING FPICER 1974 388104

ATTACHMENT 1 AGENDA MEETING OF STAFF AND APPLICANT ON MAY 29, 1975 WNP-1,4 PROJECTS Approximate Outstanding Issues Time of (Numbers refer to list Key Staff Discussion in 5/2/75 letter to applicant)

Participants 8:30 a.m.

A2 HPI/LPI Alignment R. Baer D. Basdeias T. Cox W. Lanning 9:00 a.m.

A7 Regulatory Guide 1.75 D. Basdekas T. Cox 10:00 a.m.

A9 Offsite Power System D. Basdekas T. Cox 11:00 a.m.

Al DHRS Design R. Baer D. Basdckas T. Cox 1

4 0

e

r-,

ATTACHMENT 2 ATTENDANCE LIST MEETING WITH WPPSS AND CONTRACTORS MAY 29, 1975 Name Affiliation C. B. Organ WPPSS A. J. Friedman UE&C K. E. Suhrke B&W J. W. Merchent B&W W. G. Hegg BPA R. E. Dietrich BPA B. L. 3 rooks B&W R. J. Brockman B&W H. A. Baker B&W I. H. Sargent UE&C G. A. Barunas, Jr.

UE&C J. A. Gannon UE&C B. Nemroff UE&C N. S. Portet WPPSS

• W.

Lanning NRC - DRL D. L. Basdekas NRC - DTR

.T. H. Cox NRC - DRL

• R. Baer NRC - DTR A. Hosler WPPSS

• Part-time participants i

I i

l

4 O

e 4 h le l

l l

l wn N

W &..

Ng9(sessesa) iG..n.M w

'e

' *j.

% ^*

a s, i

, by.. )

l M k; j,M4 4

RO.

44 4

/

. g*,

?? m..

n.:

.2 m

j. JA t;p.; q y

g,,

3 s

h Ny

's s

. s,..

g w.H 1

1

,nc.

n.n.:,

p 5

, f6?.* *

y ~;g:.

w j

" ; 4 3, N _'[d I

1 p 5

• 9 e

6 ifatt; Sg

,A WAS

.f _.

\\Q. beno06- 0 J*M, ALL SeeJ74593 C L*363 MP-k N'O' 4pq. 7

3. A, &#4Ps FM A*h rewm4,ssas ans. geg way.

Wy FASLeoAG M498 ALL' Ordad Jepps.,

.v,

}

tSneTR SASdl0 0'd !! 7 3^*'/P Cnf3 3 s

a f

k k$

f$U$

a H.

t p...."m*>r ' n','s.a - a.,n

~'

,.m

[

M

' ' ' i,,

l,

r w

r; - = _ n.-.-

,u mau.: 1 s

y'm gm-yjgs;;g;;g=g,.

...c.

J gg 230 kV SetmJ w

u

=

yn-a.~e@.s.:w?k$eg?k,m$. m$.m*w$

eF ASHE S&i6STN770&

• ^):a pu mp

. +:..

r-y

%NYW5.$i *Ik k 0 e

Fi& f~q) 4 g

.,y b

DISTRIBUTION OF MEETING SU:OiARY JUN 1 0 'GT$

DATED' Washington Public Power Supply System Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esquire ATTN:

Mr. J. J. Stein Conner, Hadlock:& Knotts Managing Director 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

P. O. Box 968 ashington, D. C.

20006 Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. G. M. Olds Mr. J. R. Schmieder Senior Project Manager United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.

Babcock & Wilcox Company 2000 Market Street P. O. Box 1260 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Docket Files SVarga TCox NRC PDR MWilliams RBaer LPDR FSchroeder NRR Reading (M. Groff)

RMaccary LWR 2-3 Reading File HDenton VAMoore RTedesco RCDeYoung VStello DMuller JKnight KGoller SPawlicki DSkovholt LShao RDenise BGrimes JStolz WGat: sill KKniel MSpangler ASchwencer JKastner DVassallo RBallard

^

OParr JCollins l

WButler GLainas BYoungblood VBenaroya WRegan TNovak l

GDicher TIppolito GKnighton Dross GLear OELD RPurple I&E (3)

DZiccann SD (3) i PCollins EGoulbourne WHouston ACRS (14)

RVollmer BCRusche

TSpeir, WLanning RClark DBasdekas l

l l

t e

l I

)

a t o GS Docket Nos.: 50-460 and 50-513 l

i AFFLICA' f: WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (WPPSS) i FACILITY : WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECTS ONE AND FOUR (WNP-1,4)

SUMMARY

OF MEETING TO DISCUSS OUTSTANDIliG ISSUES on May 29, 1975, representatives of WPPSS, United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C), Babcock and Wilcox (B&W), and the NRC staff met in Bethesda, Maryland.

The :neeting was held at the staff's request to discuss applicant responses to several outstanding issues. Applicant responses discussed were documented in a letter to the staff dated May 20, 1975. A meeting agenda and attendance list are attached (Attachments 1 and 2).

A summary of the meeting discussed is as.:follows:

HPI/LPI Alignment Applicant response was a description,and' discussion of the required sequence of operator actions to perform the alignment of HPI and LPI pumps, including times required to complete individual manual actions and the cumulative elapsed time for the alignment. This was in response to the staff require-ment in Section 7.3.4 of the SER. The staff requested that the applicant include, in the PSAR, a commitment to demonstrate that the LPI pumps will operate continuously at the minimum flow race expected for postulated small breaks, where the pumps are discharging to a shut-off head. The applicant agreed to supply this commitment.

D. Basdekas of the staff, asked if it were true that an operator's failure to perform the realignment of the RPI and LPI pumps might result in the loss of both HPI pumps. The applicant's response was that this was possible.

l 3&W stated that a third EPI pump was avialable in that event, if needed.

l D. Baadekas pointed out that the consequences of the postulated operator error had not been analyzed.

I B&W explained that the operator's decision to align HPI and LPI pumps is made based on the observed LPI flow rate prior to automatic switchover of l

ECCS pump suction from the SWST to the emergency sump. The operator is trained to open a cross-connect between LPI discharge and HPI suction if LPI flow rate-is less than 900 gpm per injection train. Ihe operator is ovvecs >

summaus >

nave >

l Forma AEC. SIS (Rev. M)) AEW 0240 1lt u: sa sovsanassNT PRINTINe dFEICEB $9M.S$4.ge4 I

. instructed to take this action, if necessary, within one hour af ter the postulated LOCA. This one hour time limit would effect alignment at least 23 minutes prior to depletion of the BWST. B&W said that there are control room safety grade alarms on LPI flow less than 900 gpm, BWST low level and low-low level.

R. Baer and W. Lanning of the staff stated that they would evaluate the applicant's response and issue either an acceptance or modified staff position within a few days.

Regulatory Guide 1.75 D. Basdekas, reporting for the staff on staff's evaluation of the applicant response, stated that the response was acceptable at the CP stage under the condition that certain information be supplied by the applicant in the early post CP period. WPPSS agreed to supply the following information by December 31, 1975, in fulfillment of this staff requirement:

1) Design details and analyses of the cable tunnel immediately below the refueling canal, demonstrating that, for postulated fires, essential safety system function will be protected in compliance with sections 5.1.1.1, 5.1.1.2, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 of IEEE 384-1974 as referenced in Regulatory Guide 1.75.

2) B&W qualification data showing the adequacy of the electrical separation Provided by wire insulation and/or isolation buffer devices to justify the configuration (of wiring internal to cabinets) in accordance with Paragraphs 4.3, 4.5, 4.6.lb and 5.6.2 of IEEE 384-1974.

3) Additional detail (over that given in May 20, 1975 letter to staff) regarding identification and functional specification of "small instrument transformers, small motors and other items of similarly low energy levels."

4) Design details, including sketches, describing the' electrical and mechanical design of the dual-element RTD's and their installation, showing how physical and electrical independence are provided to assure function of essential safety signals.

5) Information similar to item (4) above, but concerning the separate, redundant transmitters which are manifolded to a Gentile flow tube integral with the RC piping.

Offsite Power System WPPSS presented a discussion of the existing (PSAR Amendment 17) offsite power system and changes proposed to meet staff concerns regarding i= mediate

' access to at least one of two offsite power supplies.

D. Basdekas of the staff

. agreed that with the following modifications to the design now documented through Amendment 17 of the PSAR, the offsite power system preliminary design would be acceptable at the CP stage of review:

1) The 230 kv transmission line, from the Ashe substation to the WNP-1,4 plants, will be a buried installation, eliminating four exposed crossings under the 500 kv lines near the Ashe substation.

2) The 230 kv portion of the Ashe substation will be modified to the preliminary design shown in Attachment.3.

The applicant's commitment to the above modifications will be documented in a PSAR amendment scheduled for June 16, 1975.

DHRS Design 4

The applicant's May 20, 1975, response was discussed. The staff stated that DRRS letdown line relief valve design was acceptable based on the applicant's response (PSAR Amendment 12, December 1974) to Position No. 6.87.

This determination resolves one concern specified in Section 7.4 of the SER (issued May 2, 1975). That concern was for protection of the DHRS on increasing RCS pressure (during startup) if valves in series in one line all failed to close automatically.

The key feature of the applicant's proposed DHRS design is the use of the same ESF bus for power for the two in-series valves in one of two parallel DHR lines, and the related statement by the applicant that no single failure can cause opening of all valves in one train when RC pressure is above an interlock setpoint.

The staff noted that in order to consider the applicant's claim of physical and electrical independence preventing opening of both in-series valves simultaneously, detailed physical layouts of mechanical and electrical equipment would be required from the applicant for study by the staff.

It was concluded that this issue remained outstanding pending current review by the staff and the submission of additional supporting data by the applicant.

Ultimate Heat Sink Although not on the planned meeting agenda WPPSS was able to report to the staff that they have completed re-analysis of plant equipment associated with the cooling water supplied by the emergency spray ponds. This evaluation showed that a return water temperature of 105'F, calculated with an assumed maximum 25% nozzle array efficiency as required by the staff, is acceptable for operation of the required safety-related equipment.

I The applicant's ultimate heat sink design using the 25% efficiency is, as reported in the SER, acceptable to the staff, and this issue will be considered resolved.when adequately documented in a PSAR amendment.

l The schedule for this submittal will be esthblished in the near future.

8ttsiaal Signed 6r i

1

^

l l

Thomas H. Cox, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branc,h 2-3 Division of Reactor Licensing I

Attachments:

i 1.

Meeting Agenda 2.

Attendance List 3.

230 kv Section of Ashe Substation i

• " ' * * * -c7886/ LWR 2,3-i l

cCoxa rm.

1

= = * -

. 6/ _.l.73.

I r== ABC.He (Rw. 9-5H ABCM 02#

1. u. en sovensemearv pasieveme oarsom seve.

see

o ATTACHMENT 1 AGENDA MEETING CF STAFF AND APPLICANT ON MAY 29. 1975 WNP-1.4 PROJECTS Approximate Outstanding Issues Time of (Numbers refer to list Key Staff-Discussion in.5/2/75 letter to applicant)

Participants 8:30 a.m.

A2 HPI/LPI Alignment R. Baer D. Basdekas T. Cox W. Lanning 9:00 a.m.

A7 Regulatory Guide 1.75 D. Basdekas T. Cox 10:00 a.m.

A9 Offsite Power System D. Basdekas T. Cox 11:00 a.m.

Al l' HRS Design R. Beer D. Basdekas T. Cox 1

• ' ' ~ " '

w t---

w

ATTACHMENT 2 ATTENDANCE LIST MEETING WITH WPPSS AND CONTRACTORS MAY 29, 1975 Name Affiliation C. B. Organ WPPSS A. J. Friedman UE&C K. E. Suhrke B&W J. W. Merchent B&W W. G. Hegg BPA R. E. Dietrich BPA B. L. Brooks B&W R. J. Brockman B&W H. A. Baker B&W I. H. Sargent UE&C G. A. Barunas, Jr.

UE&C J. A. Cannon UE&C B. Nemroff UE&C N. S. Porter WPPSS

• W.

Lanning NRC - DRL D. L. Basdekas NRC - DTR T. H. Cox NRC - DRL

• R. Baer

.NRC - DTR A. Hosler WPPSS

• Part-time participants

_m

.e d

4

~

~

Armcxuatr 3

$j$,$.?

Q&W Q

f_s jh]

jj

.e.f G*uesa3 e

s

.1 ?

5' jfi' LT

^

r!. Q*j "y

'~

a f.

k' l

WM u

c

..~.

y^

f

, &_W hfl k,;

Q i.'

g.....

-,fy

p. q:..

g 7

u t

e, r.

I

• t

'[$d

.y

.c

3..

v m

m

-

w

}

1

,.7 6

=

t 1 p g

4 N.

.b g'ai q

il -v,M 4

%. gensus, on, ess seentMrs e Lesse MP NRN 0- f.}y CQP g,p,Algtf M d6hbCM Nb$MS LJGL $$$$, yf a Fasa.uns 13tses at ense terns. g U .i 4 O Sk N ? - hkh$kg f$v$ . w, w,a s a. a. n v.u.n..... m,7., s, c.. t s ~ bI ..l4 l: '1 "l8 + ..+ v, a.. .-.:.- um %,. - :. p s % g;g g g yr e 2h Xf J S YON da n - /. r e 4./

6 ',

T.*.- $d -:iMid

y. ' tj, M. $:en hN$..+,.T d 9 y'r3$-j N

%45%g N+,N$..~;w[kiMirti%j of As.4E Jil6s7M11od aw t' s s: 3 .g 1 db

?' t 7 1915 Distribution: O LWR 2-3 Reading THCox FLASH NOTE f Docket No. d 60 { 50-513 A. Schwencer, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3, DRL WNP-1,4 FACILITY FINANCING A lawsuit was filed Thursday, 5/29/75, in Seattle, calling for cancellation of an agreement between Seattle City Light Co. and WPPSS for participation in WPPSS-1, 4, 3, and 5 facilities. The basis for the suit is that Seattle City Light did not write its own environmental impact statement to the state on the proposed agreement. (See attached newspaper article.) One potential effect of the action could be to delay City Light's participa-tion in the funding of the WNP-4 LUA work planned to start later this calendar year. D. Renberger, Technical Division Manager, does not feel that there would be any delay in initiating LWA work at the V:!P-1 plant location. Funds for that effort are already available, and in fact, funding for LWA work at WNP-4 may be assured through options that allow other utility meanbers of WFPSS to provide the funds originally expected from Seattle City Light Company. Further development of this aituation will be monitored for its potential effect on our financial qualificatione review now underway. priginal signed by. Thomas H. Cox, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch-2-3 l Division of Reactor Licensing (

Enclosure:

Newspaper article l l cc: B. Rupche l E. Case l A. Giambusso

2. Boyd l

V. Moore D. Skovholt J. Peterson ELD FLASH NOTE l 8&fa7 -..L. W. R. _ 2.. 3 \\ orric e

• THCox:pam l

....s..s. ...$ll1l75 enva n Forma ABC.518 (Rev. 9-53) AEQi 0240 W u. se sovsmas.esare ensestime orriou s o,4.se see

T FRoM 7Rt-ccrf HERALD, MHt/WO, aM., M 4V 20 19 W 3m ,,r $.UT' CSM D3 DEB (,M JCYD1 a.., o s ~ ~ y y ou e r e, $?C% @DE @1 nDDTD?t% E)D;tBDQ, TCH 30/AA Y M77 A laws' ult filed Tht:rsday to have agreed to participate. The addressed all those questi:ns cancel a nuclear power a;ree-supply system is scheduled to about the need for power, both ment'.-made by Seattle City call for bids ca $100 rrillica in in its rpplication to the state for I.lght for participating in herds)!cnday..; site certification and in en. nuclear plants at Han!crd and. 'y[*f',(.[ vironmental reports filed with Satsop,was filed Thunday. the Nucl Regulatory Com. versity of Washi:gtec law stu "33I "',ca: . The ' W a s h I n g i o n En-, varonmental Council and,three dent acd Ken Ecstrck cf the In addiu.on, he said, "Those individuals charged the city of Washi: ten Cc==Itue on Coa. sarne f:etors are considered in C sumer ; Interests Di..ed the envi, temect liied,by Seattle m King County Superi the environmedal impact sb. Codrt swith.nolau:g sbte en-roamental ecund a the suit. vironmentallaws..,1 , lat,oa.The Cit 7 c: S.ea':!e "is. reallyd applicchen for a rate m-er pastr: Don an zu i .They allege as 1:e nc en environmental im;act state f,, g" g[ic[e tfyt[out the failure ef City 1.ightto write C###3'*" p gg ,, g, Ife expressed concern that if racnt en an agreement With the Richard Aram.:uru. lawye'r fcr.he suit agairet City Ught is Washington Publie Power Sup the plaintiffs, said Thursday, successful, "/. bout 100 in-ply System (WPPSS). - dividual utilities would have to That agreement allows City - Aramburu alsa represects the duplic:te what,the Sup p1y Ught to reserve herween 9 pe; Nor'h Cescadas'-Cc:servati:n.- System has already dcne. cent and 11.1 per cent cf the: Ccuncilin efforts to s cp Seattle? "It would certainly' place a cutput from nuclear ' projects C;ty Ught frem builing Highf. burden on t h a s e utilities," planned for com;1etien in the ', Ecss Dam.. ':wh4ch, he raid, include small 1930s at Hanford and Satsop/ He shaid, "They haven't ad-I municipalities and rural electric The Seattle City Council ap-- dressed questic:s of electrical associations, a,s well as large proved the. agree =ect.by 2.,. curtailment, prograins. They citics. Cityugh!-is one of lot North a haven't addressed questions of-Barner this week ' delay in; J west utilities asked :-to 10am energy censervatien. ~ construction.of the two nucleart credit to the supply systect 13 They're unfertunately Just.c plants at Hanford ~ was thres ' build'the plants. The utilities.:r'o 1 I i n g w I t h' the tide' tened b^y~ : a proposal frorai vere to back the lean of credit' ard tot looking at optices," het Richland officials to reopen site' with power.centracts frem. the ;saidP:It's a lot cf coney, to bei certification tearings to include-sptem. s e.m e...- a..provided by the r:tepapers.o-e comments on the soeio ' z IJtility spokesmes said Thurs-A..WPPSS speiesman today cconomic report about the im : day about C0 utilities already said, "The Supp1,7 System has pact of the WPPSS projee,t., .t t 4 l \\ e 4 4 s

Jl.'N 1 3 1975 Docket nos. 50-460/513 Applicant: Washington Public Power Supply System (UPPSS) Facility: Washington Nuclear Project Nos. 1 and 4 (UNP-1,4)

SUMMARY

OF 182ND CEFERAL MEETING OF ACRS TO CONSIDER THE UNP-1,4 APPLICATION On June b, 1975, the full committee of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) met with representatives of the applicant (WPPSS or Supply System) and the NRC staf f (staff). The purpose of the meeting was to consider the WPPSS application for a construction permit for the UNP-1,4 facility. A list of those persons who participated in the meeting is includod as Attachment A to this report. Copies of the visual aids presented by the applicant at the meeting are included in the transcript of the meeting. The meeting is suussarized in the following sections. 1.0 Introduction and General Description by WPPSS D. Renberger of WPPSS described the Supply System' status as a municipal corporation and a joint operating agency of the State of Washington. He described the WFPSS organisation, and in response to a question by Mr. Arnold, described which members of the current organization would remain on the UNP-1,4 project as it moved into the operation and maintenance period. 2.0 Report by the Staff T. Cox described the eight open items remaining in the review. He noted that since the issue of Supplement No. 1 to the SER on June 2, 1975, all but three issues have been resolved with at least verbal cocenitment on the part of the applicant to meet the pertinent staff position. i 3.0 Discussion Items 3.1 containment Spray Additives W. Pasedag of the staff presented answers to questions raised by the ACRS Subcommittee at the !!ay 16, 1975 meeting. He discussed the extent i P

1 p i l Washington Public Power l Supply Systen l of utilization of sodium hydroxide as a containment spray additive, l the effectiveness of the additive, and what experimental work has been I done to verify its effectiveness. He also discussed the staff's evaluations of the effectiveness of sodium hydroxide in rernoving methyl fodido. Dr. Stratton requested (Tr 243-12) that the staff perform andunport on calculations to evaluate sodium hydroxide effectiveness assuming best estimate iodine removed factors rather j than the most conservative (least iodine removal) assumptions. 3.2 Applicant's Status Report A. Hosier reported that the applicant considered-that five of the eight issues addressed in the staff report were completely resolved pending formal documentation by the applicant in a PSAR amendment. D. Renberger presented a sumanary report on a meeting of industry and utility participants at the EPRI offices in Palo Alto, California, concerning the aging requirements in IEEg Std. 323-1974. He reported that the result of the meeting was a coordinated industry-wide approach being developed that would probably propose a graduated implementation of the aging requirements. Daughter standards for 1 [ different equipment types would be developed from IEEE Std. 323 and would be implemented as they are developed. Mr. Renberger noted that i WPPSS prefers this graduated implementation rather than a withdrawal of l the standard, i 3.3 Applicant's Technical Presentation l A. Hosier described the facility general layout and site demography. R. Chitwood discussed site hydrology as affected by potential dam failures, and included consideration of the possible construction of the Ben Franklin dem. Off-site and on-site power systems vera described by N. Porter of the Supply System. Estimates were given of the probability of loss of all off-site power to the facility. He pointed out that in the unlikely event of total off-site power loss, the reactor plant is designed to decrease power level automatically to 15 per cent power, at which level the plant supplies its own power { needs. j K. Suhrke of BW addressed the accident sequence posed by the ACRS Subcommaittee at the May 16, 1975 meeting. Reactor safety was to be evaluated in the event of a unit trip, loss of all off-site power and subsequent failure to start of both diesel generator emergency power l sources. He discussed heat removal by natural circulation in the reactor coolant loop and simultaneous - forced circulation in the steam p l l I i

l I Washington Public Power ~ Supply Systen, l l piping by th. steau-turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump. Mr. Euhrke i reported that the plant could be maintained safely, with the core covered i by water, under the postulated conditions for at leant 10n hours, during which time off-site or on-site emergency pcwer could be restored to i terminate the transient condition. The discussion included results of I specific natural c.'rculation tests performed nt the Ocenee Unit 1 fa'cility, which testing has been reported to MRC in the 0:ones t' nit 1 i Startup Report, Supplement 1, dated May 15, 1974. Ifr. Suhrke also described the differences between thaMNP-1,4 MSSS and l that presented in the Bellefonte and Greenwood applications. The identified differences were few, including number of centrol rods and i control rod worth, emergsney safety featuras actuation system (ESFAS) logic, effeccive dates of applicabla ASME codes, number of ESFAS channels, and method of automatic initiation of core flood tank isolation valves. Mr. Hosler discussed the WNP-1,4 contaimeent design, and described ^ pressures developed within the containment for several postulated pipe rupture accidents. The distribution of thermal energy within containment structural components after,an accident was discussed. Containment subcompartment differential pressures were discussed. W. Bainard, of WPPSS,, described plant design steps the applicant is implementing to reduce personnel exposure during operation and maintenance of the facility, with special emphasis on the WPPSS setivities underway to assure minimum exposure due to required in-l service inspections. He described an improved inflatable seal assembly that will be used to close the space betvean reactor vessel and refueling canal prior to filling the refueling canal with water. j This seal is expected to more than pay for itself during the life of l-the plant in reduced personnel esposures, based on the current !!RC assigned value of $1,000 per man ram. Ile also des:ribed efforts to I reduce pressure head removal time, and to develop chemical cleaning 1 methods that would reduce residual activity in components and piping. l I i l j At Dr. Kerr's suggestion, the full committee declined to hear a planned i i presentation on industrial security since the subject was discussed at l j

• he Subco:maittee acetin.

o i 4.0 ACRS Concerns l During the course of the meeting, a number of concerns were expressed by ACRS m*mbers. The following is a list of those which were raised but i w nec ennm1 ae =1 = --u---3 l l ,... ~

~ i I Washington Public Power i' Supply System (1) Mr. Pox (237-04) - How about the irradiation field? (testing of sodits hydroxide as containment spray additive) (2) Dr. Moeller (238-04) - Has the hydrazine been subjected to radiation exposure? (3) Dr. Stratton (243-12) - I will request you to go through the calculation (of iodine removal by containment spray) without the additive, as well as with the additive using the best estimate calculations for the estimates for the wash out factors. (4) Dr. Bush (263-17) 4 Would like to have tabular compilation of probabilities of failure of all off-site power, for the various assumptions involved. (5) Mr. Arnold (282-15) - Does the staff agree with the contention of BW on the possibility of a water hammer? (6) Dr. Okrent (286-20) - Could you say what you would consider to be the major racertainty, if any, in the mechanisms of heat trans-l for to the steel (containment) liner or other exposed surfaces? (7) Mr. Bender (301-09) - Have you made a comparison between the Bellefonte sad WNP-1,4 designs regarding those features that are incorporated to meet dlectrical separation criteria? Is WNP-1,4 equivalent l to or better than Bellefonte? l 5.0 ACRS Conclusions The committee concluded that it could write a letter favorable to a construction permit. celainal 5158.*d bt T. H. Cox, Project Manager l Light Water Reactors Branch 2-3 Division of Reactor Licensing i l l Attachmentt l List of Attendees l l l t x7886/ LWR 2-3 ] rCox:rms& 6/..19 /75- -.... u,,, Fon, AEC 518 (Rw. 9-35) ABCM 02m Q v. ..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,,c {

. ~ s h _ ISTRIBUTION OF MEETING SUMMMY D 21 1 0 L75 DATED Washington Public Power Supply System Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esquire ATTN: Mr. J. J. Stein Conner, Hadlock & Knotts Managing Director 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. P. O. Box 968 Washington, D. C. 20006 Richland, Washington 99352 Mr. E. G. Ward !!r. J. R. Schmieder Senior Project Manager K[ United Engineers & Construction, Inc. Babcock & Wilcox Company 2000 Market Street P. O. Box 1260 Philadelphia, PA. 19103 Lynchburg, Virginia 24505 Jocket Files SVarga JGiannelli NRC PDR IMillians P0'Reilly 7,PDR FSchroeder DTibbits URR Reading (!!. Groff) FJfaccary TGreene LUR 2-3 Ecading File HDenton WPasedag VAMoore RTcdccco LSoffer RCDcYoung VStello DMuller JKnip,ht KColler SPaulichi DSkovholt LShao Facniso BGrines JStol UGammill KKniel MSpangler ASchwencer JKastner DVassallo RBallard OParr JCollins WButler GLainas BYoungblood VBenaroya URegan TUovak GDicker TIppolito GKnighton DRocs GLear OELD RPurple I&E (3) - DZiccann SD (3) FCollins EGoulbourne Ullouston ,ACRS (14) RVollmer ECRusche TSoels TCox ; RClark cst'ahle r u}}