ML20213D007
| ML20213D007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1979 |
| From: | Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0275, CON-WNP-275 NUDOCS 7907310318 | |
| Download: ML20213D007 (2) | |
Text
-.
~
~
g' DISTRIBUTION
> Docket File 50-397 MAY 211979 NRR Reading (P-428)
ETSB Reading File ETSB Docket File i
J. Collins Docket No. 50-397
.,,..m MEMORANDUM FOR:
S. Varga, Chief l
Light Water Reactors Branch 4, OPM FROM:
J. T. Collins, Chief Effluent Treatment Systems Branch, DSE
SUBJECT:
WASHINGTON fUCLEAR PROJECT, UtJIT NO. 2, Q-2's PLANT NAf*E: Washington Nuclear Project, Unit No. 2 LICEt4 SING STAGE: OL DOCKET tiUMBER: 50-397
.tILESTONE NUMBER: 12-01 RESPONSIBLE BRANCH: LWR-4 PROJECT MAtlAGER:
M. D. Lynch DESCRIPTI0tl 0F RESP 0tlSE: Round Two Questions REQUESTED CDMPLETION DATE: May 30, 1979 REVIEW STATUS: Additional Infomation Needed We have reviewed the amended FSAR for Washington Nuclear Project, Unit No. 2, and find that we need additional infomation 'to complete our evaluation.
The recent Three Mile Island occurrence has pointed out deficiencies in the upper range capacity for gaseous effluent monitoring and in procedures for transferring sump liquids from the reactor building to the radwaste butiding.
Our questions pertain to these matters.
Enclosed is the additional infomation we need to complete our safety evaluation.
Origin:1 cicaea gy: g/
Bichard L. Sa:3 art g John T. Collins, Chief Effluent Treatnent Systens Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
Enclosure:
Round Two Questions cc:
R. DeYoung R. Hartfield (w/o encl.)
D. Muller it. Lynch D. Vassallo W. Burke P. 5toddart g'l D.Crutchfield9/,$
L. Crocker
/
W. Kreger t **
.,.. =
- _EISalDSE___..EISB101E
...EISft: _.g' E toddant.:ptIB$5b' 2C01.1.1 <
i l
S/21/79 5/w /79 5/.g{/79 ( gg,g g34 1
mc roam m u.m mcw om
- u..-.,
n.. >= =. me -. D kf} y
a 321-1 321.0 EFFl.UENT TREATMENT SYSTEMS 321.6 The operational radiation monitoring systems provided (11.5) for gaseous radioactive effluent streams, as described in Section 11.5.1.1.2 of the FSAR, do not have sufficient range to scrmit evaluation of releases such as those that recently occurred at Three Mile Island, Unit 2.
Describe your provisions for assessing plant releases in the event of a similar cccurrence at WNP-2.
321.7 On page 9.3-16 of the FSAR, Section 9.3.3.2.1.1, it is (9.3) stated that the pump for the reactor building equipment drain sump is automatically activated by a level switch and pumps the semp contents 'to the waste collector tank in the radwaste building.
In vicu of the extensive con-tamination of the Three Mile Island Unit 2, auxiliary f>ullding which was the direct result of such an autouatic pumping arrangcment, you should provide a pu. aping arrange-ment to prevent a similar occurrence.
6
--,