ML20210S878
| ML20210S878 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Satsop |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1975 |
| From: | Stello V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Deyoung R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-1694 NUDOCS 8605290477 | |
| Download: ML20210S878 (3) | |
Text
e Q
'h
/
0 Docket No.: STN 50-508 4 509 Richard C. DeYoung, Jr., Assistant Director for LUR's, Orog 1, RL WASHINGTON FUBLIC POWER SUFFLY SYSTEM. UNITS 3 & 5 Plant Names WFFSS 3 & 5 Licensing Stage: CF Docket No.: STN 50-508/509 Milestone No.: 24-21 Responsible Branch & Project Leaders LWR 1-3, P. D. O'Bainly Requested Completion Date: June 16, 1975 Technical Review Branch Involved: Reactor Systems Description of Request: SER Review Status: Complete emaapt for unresolved items The Reactor Systems Branch has reviewed the WFFSS 3 & 5 Project PSAR through A===d= ant 18 which was submitted on June 23, 1975. The review included Sections 1.5, 4.1, 4.2.3, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2.2, 5.5, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.3.4, and Section 15 of the FSAR. In Section 15. RSB responsi-bility consisted of reviewing all of the transients esaapt CIA misalignment, inadvertent loading of a fuel assesely into an improper position, vaste gas decay tank release accident, CEA ejection accident, fuel handling accident, and information pertaining to enrironmental consequences of accidents.
i I
An audit of CESSAR interface requirements specified by Censbustion EnSinearing was completed by the staff in June, 1975. Many of these l
requirements are specified in CRSSAR amendments not yet incorporated by WFFSS at the time of this review. The etaff evaluation of WFPSS 3 & 5 i
compliance to interface requirements will be addressed in an SIR supplement after all CESSAR amendments on interface requirements have been incorporated into the WFPSS 3 & 5 submittal.
l The WPPSS 3 & 5 Project PSAR Sections 1.5, 4.1, 4.2.3, 4.4, 5.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.7, 6.3.1, and Section 15 are identiaal to CESSAR. The safety evaluation of these sections by RSE is reported in "Cambustian Eng1 meeting Standard Safety Analysis Report (CESSAR)" letter from Y. Stallo, Jr. to R. C. DeYoung, Jr., dated March 28, 1975 and " Supplement to CESSAR SER" from E. Roostecsy to R. C. DeYoung, Jr., dated J m e 11, 1975. The following items were identified as outstanding and must be resolved prior to granting a construction a
permit for WFPSS 3 4 5 or any other CESSit plants (1) Anticipated Transients Without Scram must be reviewed.
(2) Design changes to the shutdown cooling system to satisfy Beneral l
Design Criterion 34 must be accomplished.
l l
l 8605290477 750710 PDR ADOCK 05000508 A
.l.
l l-oats >
Form. AEC.)ls (Ites. 9 9)) ARCM 0240 W u. e. novs amas s =, p.e=reme opric si t.v...se-s ee f
l
I l
JUL 1 a rj R. C. DeYoung, Jr. (3). Pressurizer relief tank design procedures anat be acceptable (presently under review).
(4) The ECCS performance evaluation must comply to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix R.
(5) Flow restrictors are to be inoopperated in the main steam lines.
(6) The boron dilution incident must be remnalysed using assumptions consistent with the proposed technical specifications.
Several additional items identified in the CESSAR safety evaluation reports must be completed or complied with prior to acceptance of any CESSAR plant for an operating license section 5.2.2 of WPPSS 3 & 5 PSAR describes the overpressure Protection design of CESSAR. However, it has not been updated to reflect the design change of A===Amant No. 16 which provides for 12 safety valves in the main stesa line rather than 16 of equal total espacity as used in the CESSAR overpressure protection analysis (Appendix 5A). The staff evaluation of the 12 safety relief valves reported in Section 5.5 and Table 5.5-5 for main steam relief will be completed after the WPPSS 3 & 5 submittal has been fully updated including final CESSAR interface requirements.
Section 6.3.2 of WPPSS 3 & 5 PSAR includes en evaluation of available NPSR i
for ECCS pumps compared to that required by CESSAR. Bowever, the evaluation I
omits consideration of the low pressure safety injection pumps during the recirculation phase. Also, the applicant has deferred to CESSAR for answers to staff questions concerning the conseq==aeam of failure to restart these pumps two hours after LOCA and concerning the possible need for throttling this flow to match available NPSE and the procedures, controls, and monitoring instrumentation to be used if flow throttling may be necessary.
This information must be provided before the staff evaluation of low pressure ECCS pumps can be completed and before issuance of the SER supplement evaluating WFPSS 3 & 5 with respect to CESSAR interfaces.
Section 6.3.4 indicates that the applicant is evaluating Regulatory Guide 1.79 and will address the compliance of ECCS preoperational tests to this guide in a later====d= vat.
This information mest be reviewed and reported in an SER supplement before our CP evaluation is complete.
Reactor Systass Branch is responsible for review of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Tankape Detection System (Section 5.2.7 in WFPSS) on construction applications accepted for review after October 1, 1974. The WPPSS application was accepted prior to that data ao that Materials Engineering Branch has the primary review responsibility. Although tha leakage detection system for or nca +
guRNAMCW omi s h Form MC 318 (llev 9 53) AICM 0240 W u. e. oovammenant Pnentime orrects sere.sas.ne.
\\
1 l
\\
R. C. DeYoung, Jr. -
WFPS,8 3 & 5 has been reviewed by Materials Engineering Branch and found acceptable, there are deficiencias in the sectimt 5.2.7 submittal wtiich were acted during our review of these systems. For esemple, the applicant indientes that the airborna particulate monitoring systent cannot most the sensitivity requirements of Ragulatory Guida 1.45 while the gaseous monitoring systest can.
t*=1*=1= tion results cited by the applicant contain obvious errors (such as in the conversion of gym leakage to 1b/ day) and information available to the staff indicates that the sensitivity of particulate monitoring systems is much better than gaseous monitoring systems. Further, the section 5.2.7 presentation indicates a confusion of intersystem leakage with unidentified leaks to the contaf== ant atmosphere and possible inadequacies in the collection and monitoring of leakage from known sources. These deficiencies have been discussed with the Materials Engineering Branch and there is agreement that the section 5.2.7 submittal should be reviewed and modified by the appiicant.
Reactor Systems Branch has reviewed the WPPSS 3 & 8 PSA2 and concludes that upon completion of, and compliance with, the above cited unresolved items, the WPPSS 3 & 5 plants can be constructed and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Original Signal by Victor Steno Victor Stello, Jr., Assistant Director for Reactor Safety Division of Technical Review l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
S. Hanainer F. Schroeder I
A. Giambuseo O. Parr F. O'Reilly T. Novak E. Roestoczy L. Phillipe W. Mcdonald o
Distribution Docket File (2)
NRR Reading RSB Reading i
ePPte = >
TR:RS
--TR RS -
TR:R
' _TR:
.LPhill ps:dt
.ZRokzhocz.
ak. -
~.VS 1
.u...-s*
7/8/75 7/g/75 __.
7/[675 _
7/ 75 l
Foram AEC 318 (Rev,9 53) AECM 0240 W u. s. oovan=esENT PReMTeme OPPICEI 1974 834. tee
..