ML20213C913
| ML20213C913 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1979 |
| From: | Soffer L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Schauer F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0268, CON-WNP-268 NUDOCS 7904300406 | |
| Download: ML20213C913 (1) | |
Text
r APR 131979 i
i l
i i
MEHORANDU:4 FOR:
F.P. Schairer, Chief, Structural Engineering Branch,' DSS i
THRU:
W. Houston, Chief, Accident Analysis Branch, DSE I
l FR0it:
L'. Soffer, Section Leader, Section 3, Accident Analysis Granch, DSE
SUBJECT:
TURBI!iE ltISSILE PE:iETRATIOi FOR UNP-2 According to Section 3.5.1.3.3 of the UPPSS-2 FSAR, all safety systems necessary for plant shutdown (with the exception of the northern most RHR heat exchanger) arc sufficiently protected a.]ainst destructive over-speed turbina missiles by virtue of existing concrete barriers. The relevant information is provided by the applicant in Tables 3.5-3 and 3.5-4, and figures.3.5-33 and 3.5-34.
He request that you. evaluate the adequacy of the relevent barriers for protection of the safety related areas listed in Table 3.5-4 against the aissiles described in Table 3.5-3.
If you need additional infornation on this, please contact K. Canpe (AA3) or.r.yyalf.
i
,, __, ___, m L. Soffer, Section Leader Section a Accident Analysis Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis i
cc:
W. Houston E. hd[ "
7 9 0 4 3 0 09c6XA l e K. Campe Distribution M.D. Lynch w,,t,si Pfle_
AAB Reading File NRR Reading File Houston / Subject File.
~ A.==P-I
.h.h.
.h.
l.0.h.h..
..b orrica >
..KC.ayet.t.1.m...
.,. 9iie c......
...n nu.s.toa..
,b
./
o.n >
4 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 8.e.e. eave=====v.=eavine ome n s s e u s - a.e tes i
,}
+
4 UNITED STATES
[
-'k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
wasmNGTON, D. C. 20666 AFR 131979 Docket Nos.: 50-358, 50-352/353,50-36L 5 " 374, 50-387/388, 50-410, 50-32 L 50-397, APPLICANT: Members of Mark II Owners Group
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH MARK II OWNERS GROUP TO DISCUSS INTERMEDIATE PLANT PROGRAM TASKS (MARCH 21,1979)
Background
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the status of several of the Mark II Owners' Intennediate Program Tasks. This included: an indepth preview of several new tasks (i.e., the condensation oscillation test task and the Bechtel improved chug load definition task); preliminary observations from the ongoing CREARE multivent subscale steam tests; and preliminary observations from the completed in-plant CA0RSO SRV quencher tests.
An attendance list and a copy of the meeting handouts are enclosed.
Summary Several new tasks were recently identified as a part of the Mark II owners' supporting program.
In addition significant progress was made in several existing tasks in the supporting program. A summary of the status report provided to the staff by the Mark II owners relative to these programs is provided below.
1.
Task A.17, Condensation Oscillation Test Program The Mark II owners proposed additional full scale steam tests in the 4T facility at the February 13-14, 1979 Mark II owners meeting with the staff. These new tests are directed towards obtaining a better understanding of LOCA related condensation oscillations in the downcomers. Modifications in the full scale test facility vent length will allow a more conclusive assessment of vent length effects than is possible in subscale tests. The purpose of this presentation i
n 61)
g
,1
=
hPR 131979 Distribution:
CO ' 9h Docket Files a
NRR Reading
/
CSB Reading H. Denton R. Mattson S. Hanauer R. Fraley, ACRS (16)
R. Boyd R. DeYoung, D. Vassallo D. Skovholt R. Tedesco D. Ross I&E (3)
NRC PDR W. Butler F. Schauer R. Bosnak T. Su R. Trevino J. Kudrick L. Ruth F. Eltawila A. Hafiz C. Grimes G. Lainas R. Cudlin C. Anderson 79o50po3/6
- a y*.--
.r-
.o d
4 7:
r
)
Apg 131979 MEETING NOTICE DISTRIBUTION Docket File J. Knight NRC PDR S. Hanauer Local PDR R. Tedesco S. Pawlicki TIC Branch LWR #4 File F. Schauer NRR Reading K. Kniel H. Denton T. Novak E. Case Z. Rosztoczy D. Crutchfield R. Bosnak D. Bunch R. Satterfield R. Boyd W. Butler R. Mattson F. Rosa R. DeYoung V. Moore D. Muller M. Ernst D. Ross R. Denise D. Vassallo R. Ballard D. Skovholt B. Youngblood W. Gammill W. Regan F. Williams G. Chipman J. Stolz R. Houston R. Baer J. Collins
- 0. Parr W. Kreger S. Varga G. Lear P. Collins M. Spangler T. Speis V. Benaraya W. Haass L. Hulman C. Hel temes H. Ornstein ACRS (16)
J. Ledoux, IE L. Crocker Principal Staff
Participants:
H. Berkow R. Scholl Project Manager:
M.D. Lynch Attorney, ELD IE(3)
SD (7)
Licensing Assistant:
M. Service Receptionist L. Rubenstein
(. Soffer 790515g
April 13, 1979 Docket tio.: 50-397 ist0RAtlDUf1 FOR: Steven A. Varga, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch !!o. 4 1
Division of Project fianagement i
FR0!1:
fl. D. Lynch, Project 14 nager, Light Water Reactors Branch flo. 4, Division of Project !!anageacnt
SUBJECT:
FORTHCOMIllG MEETIf1G WITli llPPSS C0i!CER!ilflG TiiE IaC PORTION OF THE WilP-2 FSAR Date & Time:
Thursday, April 19, 1979 9:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.
Location:
Room P-500, Phillips Building, Bethesda, ild.
Purpose:
Discuss with the WPPSS management the staff's concerns regarding Chapter 7 of the HNP-2 FSAR
Participants:
HRC S. Ilanauer S. A. Varga D. B. Vassallo ft. D. Lynch R. Satterfield R. Scholl WPPSS R. Cockrell, et.al.
Original :1gned cys.
D. Lynch M. D. Lynch, Project fianager Light flater Reactors Granch No. 4 Division of Project ilanagement cc: See next page.
?
h, $
?'
m&yn:
bM(LWN DPM:i.WR#4..
MDLynch/j t SAVar'ga.
.ono.
4/13/79 4/
/79 Form AEC 318 (Rev. 9 53) AICat 0240 W u. s. eovannasaser paiwtime opricas sete.sao tee
- - ~_
~
l Washington'Public Power Supply System cc::
Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Mr. Neil 0. Strand Debevoise & Liberman Washington Public Power Supply System 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.
3000 George Washington Way Washington, D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Richard Q. Quigley, Esq.
Washington Public Power Supply System 3000 George Washington Way P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Nicholas Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, Washington 98504 Mr. O. K. Earle Licensing Engineer P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Nepom & Rose Suite 101, Kellogg Building 1935 S. E. Washington Milwaukie, Oregon 97222 Ms. Susan M. Garrett 7325 S. E. Steele Street Portland, Oregon 94206 Mr. Creg Darby 807 So Fourth Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 t
e e-og w
[
DISTRIBUTION M et File R. DeYoung i
LWR-4 File J. Knight b
APR 171979 R. Boyd S. Hanauer D. Ross R. Tedesco D. Vassallo V. Moore S. Varga R. Denise M. Service OELD Docket No.
50-397 R. Mattson MEMORANDUM FOR:
S. A. Varga, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, DPM FROM:
M. D. Lynch, Project Manager, Light Water Reactors Branch 4, DPM
SUBJECT:
PRESENT STATUS OF THE ROUND-0NE QUESTIONS FOR WNP-2 AND AN ESTIMATE OF THE FUTURE COURSE OF THE OL REVIEW, INCLUDING A RECOMMENDATION OF A TWO MONTH SCHEDULE SLIP.
This memo summarizes the present status of the round-one questions for the OL review of the WNP-2 facility, an estimate of the future course of the staff review and a recommendation for a two month slip in the present schedule.
Briefly, about 500 round-one questions will be sent to the applicant by the end of this month and a grand total of about 1300 questions will probably be generated prior to issuance of the SER. Both the large number and the complexity of these questions will probably cause a slip of several months in the present schedule.
A schedule slip of two months is recommended.
Status of Round-one Questions To date, a total of 395 round-one questions covering about.100 pages (single-spaced) have been sent to the applicant. Another 60 questions covering about 23 pages will be sent by April 19th (RSB) and it is antici-pated that the last batch will be sent during the latter part of the month.
The number of round-one questions should total about 500 questions covering about 132 pages.
The total number of questions (i.e., acceptance review and round-one) will then be about 730 questions covering about 220 pages.
I have reviewed each of these questions to determine if they were valid review questions and discussed a number of them with the individual reviewers. A very small number were eliminated by this process with the agreement of the appropriate review personnel. Accordingly, the questions which were transmitted represent, in my opinion, valid areas of staff concern.
Estimate of the Future Course of the Staff Review Assuming that the number of round-two questions and positions will be
~
about 20 percent less than the number of round one questions, the number of questions at the end of the round-two phase of our review should be about 1100 questions covering about 340 pages with the exception of the plant unique questions related to the Mark II dynamic pool loads. This 6 $11dK2o
.__