ML20213F114
| ML20213F114 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1985 |
| From: | Houston R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213D572 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-741, FOIA-84-742 NUDOCS 8501280100 | |
| Download: ML20213F114 (7) | |
Text
"
s l
MN 2 2 1965 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FROM:
R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety, OSI
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 SER SUPPLEMENT NO. 29 Plant Name:
Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 and 2 Docket Number:
50-275/323 Licensing Stage:
OR (Unit 1)/0L (Unit 2)
Project Manager:
H. Schierling OSI Review Branch:
Reactor Systems Branch
. to this memo provides the Reactor Systems Branch inputs to Diablo l
Canyon Units 1 and 2 SSER No. 23.
This input includes uodated information on i
allegations No. 39 and 45.
Our evaluation reflects information in the PGE letters dated September 5, 1984 (DCL-84-301) and January 11, 1985 (DCL-85-012).
The review of all allegations within the RSB's area of responsibility has been completed and all issues relative to these allegations are closed.
Please ensure that Region V will perform its inspection and verification of the RHR l
low flow alarm installation and modification of operating procedure B-2.11.
l contains the staff SALP evaluation.
Ljyt% ":: ; '-
C, d..- '
R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety, OSI'
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
R. Bernero DISTRIBUTION i
F. Rosa Docket File G. Knighton RSB R/F H. Schierling RSB P/F: Diablo Canyon RSB Section Leaders CLiang R/F S. Diab LMarsh l
BSheron i
CONTACT:
C. Liang, RSB A
RS R x24754 l
"0FFXIAL RECORD COPY" /r
- Previous concurrence k./
DSI:RSB DSI:RSB 05 OSI on file with RSB.
RdH ston CLiang: lam LMarsh BSh on l
01/17/85*
01/17/85*
01/22,/85 01( U85 ef5
> 1,
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FROM:
R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director
/
for Reactor Safety, OSI f
.n
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT,
,,l*
UNITS 1 AND 2 - SER SUPPLEMENT NO. 29f."
p Plant Name:
Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 and 2 Docket Number:
50-275/323 f'
Licensing Stage:
OR (Unit 1)/0L (Unit 2)
/
Project Manager:
H. Schierling
/
OSI Review Branch:
Reactor Systems Branch
-f f
, to this memo provides Reactor Systems Branch inputs to Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and 2 SSER No. 29.
This, input includes updated information on the allegation No. 39 and 45.
Our evaluation reflects information in the PGE letters dated September 5, 1984 (OCL-84-301) and January 11,1985 (OCL-85-012).
The RSB review of all allegations applicable to Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 has been completed and all issues relative to allegations are closed.
Please ensure that Region V will perform;its inspection and verification of the RHR low flow alarm installation and.. modification of the operation procedure B-2.11.
.: contains the staff SALP evaluation.
R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety, OSI
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
R. Bernero DISTRIBUTION F. Rosa
/
Docket File G. Knightof RSB R/F H. 'Schierling RSB P/F: Diablo Canyon RSB Sec.tlon Leaders CLiang R/F S. Diatf' LMarsh BSheron CONTACT:
. Liang, RSB A0/RS Rdg.
4754 CLiang "0FFICIAL RECORD COPY"
- Previous concurrence OSI:RSB DSI:RSB DSI:RSB 0SI:AD:RS on file with RSB.
CLiang:jf LMarsh BSheron RWHouston 01/17/85*
01/17/85*
01/ /85 01/ /85
--.o wn, a
4 l
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, OL
/'
.j i
FROM:
R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director f
i for Reactor Safety, DSI
/
t
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, j
UNITS 1 AND 2 - SER SUPPLEMENT NO. 29.
i Plant Name:
Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 and 2 j'#
i Docket Number:
50-275/323 oL f.
l Licensing Stage:
OR (Unit 1)/(Unit 2)
/
- )(
i Project Manager:
H. Schierlik
/
1 DSI Review Branch:
Reactor Systems Branch,4
,/
1 to this memo provides Reactor Systems Branch inputs to Diablo 1
Canyon Unit 1 and 2 SSER No. 29.
This' input includes updated information on i
j the allegation No. 39 and 45. Our evaluation reflects information in the PGE letters dated September 5,1984 (DCL-84-301) and January 11, 1985 (DCL-85-012).
f The RSB review of all allegations,' applicable to Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 has j
been completed and all issues refative to allegations are closed.
Please i
ensure that Region V will perform its inspection and verification of the RHR
{
low flow installation and modification of the operation procedure B-2.11.
t contains the sta f SALP evaluation.
1 Llw a
/
i R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director j
/:
for Reactor Safety, DSI
Enclosure:
Asstaked i
cc:
R.Bernero[f, DISTRIBUTION l
F. Rosa Docket File 1
G. Knighto,n RSB R/F H. SchieM ing RSB P/F: Diablo Canyon RSB Section Leaders CLiang R/F I
S. Di 6 LMarsh
}
BSheron i
CONTACT:
C. Liang, RSB AD/RS Rdg.
I X24754 CLiang "0FFICIAL RECORD COPY" DSI/RSBc8 DSI:RSB
.N DSI:RSB DSI: AD: RS CLiang:j f LMarsh BSheron RWHouston j
01/tpa5 01/ 0/85 01/ /85 01/ /85 1
i I
h..
j
.4..
. + - -
Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 SSER No.29 (RSB)
Task:
Allecation 39 (Previously addressed in SSERs 21, 22 and 26)
ATS No.:
RV 83A47 BN No.: 83-169 (10/20/83)
Characterization Previously accressed in SSERs 21, 22 and 26.
Imolied Sionificance to Plant Desian, Construction, or Ooeration Previously addressed in SSERs 21 and 22.
Assessment of Safety Sicnificance Previously accressec in SSERs 21, 22 and 26.
Staff Position Previously adcressed in SSERs 21, 22 and 26.
Action Required In SSER No. 26,. the staff stated that in its letter of June 6, 1984, the licensee confirmed that the components which provide the low flow alarm were installed and tested on Diablo Canyon Unit 1.
The RHR system low flow alarm is now functional.
Region V has inspe'cted and verified the installation of the low flow alarm through the routine inspection program (NRC
~
Report 50-275/84-11).
In its letter of January 11, 1984, the licensee confirmed that PG&E has installed and tested the RHR low flow alarm on Unit 2.
The alarm system is functional and is identical in design and function to that installed on Unit I l
and described in PG&E letter dated May 24, 1984.
The staff concludes that i
i
)
1
. the issue is resolved for both Units 1 and 2.
Region V will inspect and verify the installation of the low flow alarm on Unit 2 through the routine inspection program.
Task:
Allegation 45 (Previously addressed in SSERs 21, 22, 26 and 28)
ATS No.:
RV 83A47 BN No.83-169 (10/20/83)
Characterization Previously accressed in SSERs 21, 22 and 26.
Imolied Significance to Plant Design, Construction, or Ooeration Previously accressed in 55ERs 21 and 22.
Assessment of Safety Significance Previously aadressec in SSERs 21, 22, and 26.
Staff Position Previously addressed in SSERs 21, 22 and 26.
Action Required In SSER No. 26, the staff stated that in a letter from G. Knighton (NRC) to J.
O. Schuyler (PG&E) dated May 21, 1984, the staff requested that Technical Specification 3.4.9.3 and Operating Procedure B-2.11 be changed within 3 months after the low flow alarm is installed to require power to be available to the RHR hot leg suction isolation valves.
SSER No. 26 also stated that the staff would report the resolution of this action item in a later SSER.
In response to this staff requirement, PG&E, in 'its letter dated September 5,1984, stated that Operating Procedure B-2 series has been modified to require that power be applied to the RHR suction valves when in Modes 4 (with h
. the RHR system aligned to the RCS), 5, and 6.
This operating procedure modi-fication is applicable to both Units 1 and 2.
The plant i: being operated in a mode that complies with existing Technical Specifications, in that with power applied to the suction valve operators, the reciprocating charging pump will not be operated in modes 4 (below 323'F), 5, and 6 with the head on the vessel.
Therefore, the change to Technical Specification 4.4.9.3.1, which was also requested in the May 21, 1984 NRC letter, is not required.
The staff has evaluated PG&E's response as stated above and concludes that it is acceptable.
The components which provide the low flow alarm were in-stalled and tested on both Units 1 and 2, as confirmed in PG&E letters dated June 6, 1984 and January 11, 1985 respectively. The licensee has completed the required change of its operating procedure to require power to be available to the RHR hot leg suction valves for both Units 1 and 2.
Therefore, the staff concludes that no further action is required.
Region V will inspect the licensee's operating procedure relative to this item through its routine Inspection program.
8 2
_ Enclosure 2
_SALP INPUT The purpose of this enclosure is to document our evaluation of the 5
ensee's j
performance during OSI's Safety Evaluation Review.The following criteria from NRC Appendix 0516 are the only ones relevant to this evaluation 1.
Manacement involvement in Assuring Quality This action was handled by personnel at the appropriate level o management.
The utility involved the necessary in-house technical i
staff.
Rating:
Category 2 i
1 2.
Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues The applicant performed the work required.
The quality of applicant's submittal was satisfactory.
Rating:
Category 2 3.
Response to NRC Initiatives The applicant's responses to the NRC's Request for Additional Information (RA!) was satisfactory.
Rating:
Category 2 4.
Overall Ratina:
Category 2 4
.g
- w w
i
'o UNITED STATES E
7.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
j W ASM NG TON, D. C. 205$5 g
a
%,..... /
JijN 171985
.c Docket Nos. 50-275/323 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM:
William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials, Chemical & Environmental Technology Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
SAFETY EVALUATION OF ALLEGATIONS 1513 THRU 1518 (TAC
- 54434) DIABLO CANYON (DCP), UNITS 1 AND 2 PlantJame: Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Suppliers: Westinghouse Electric Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Licensing State: OR/0L Docket Hos. 50-275/323 Responsible Branch & Project Manager: LB #3; H. Schierling CNEB Reviewer:
D. J. Kubicki Status: Safety Evaluation Complete By letters dated February 22 and April 9, 1985, the licensee provided
-infonnation concerning the subject allegations. Enclosed is our evaluation of the allegations. Based on our evaluation, we conclude that the design, o
installation and acceptance tests of the protection water supply system is i
in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the applica)le National Fire Protection Association Standards and Sections C.2 and C.3 of Appendix
,i.
A to BTP APCSB.9.5-1. Therefore none of the allegations 1513 through 1518 have been substantiated.
i Nk William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials, Chemical & Environmental Technology Division of Engineering
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
J. Knight H. Thompson T. Sullivan
( Q.
!p, $ \\
V. Benaroya M</d.g))[)gL R. Ferguson p
H. Schierling t
G. Knighton M. Ley N
/
DIABLO CANYON y
ALLEGATIONS 1513 ThRU 1518 TASK: Allegation 1513 Characterization:
Water ficw tests have not been conducted on the fire protection water distribution system.
I Implied Significance to Plant Design Construction, or Operation 6
,t i
I.
If water flow tests were not conducted on the fire protection water 1
distribution system there would not be reasonable assurance that the underground mains were free of obstruction or that the distribution system was capable of supplying the required quantity of water at sufficient pressure to supply sprinkler systems and fire hose stations.
Assessment of Safety Significance l
By letter dated February 22, 1985, the licensee confinned that fire protection water flow tests are conducted at Diablo Canyon in conjunction 4
with system acceptance testing and as part of plant Technical Specification surveillance testing.
In addition, fire flow tests of a type referred to in the allegation are conducted as part of DCP Surveillance Test Procedure ll (STP)M-71. These tests confom to the guidance presented in the National FireProtectionAssociation(NFPA)Hardbook.14theditionandNFPAStandard R
j No. 13.
l i
j Staff Position i
Sections C.2 and C.3 of Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5.1 establish that NFPA l
Standards Nos. 13, 14, 20 and 24 should be used in the design, installation
'i l
and testing of fire protection water supply systems, sprinkler systems, and standpipe and hose systems.
In Supplement Nos. 8 and 9 to the Diablo I
CanyonSafetyEvaluationReport(SER),weconcludedthatthesesystems i
.J i
I 1
~__
^
/
/
2 confimed to our fire protection guidelines and were, therefore acceptable. We also have approved the plant Technical Specifications concerning testing of fire protectiun systens. We, therefore, conclude that on_the _ bases _of our original safety evaluation and the approved technical specifications, the fire protection water distribution systems have been and are being tested in a satisfactory manner.
Action Required No further action required on the allegation.
TASK: Allegations 1516, 1517, and 1518 Characterization:
The fire water distribution system piping is not designed and installed in accordance with NFPA Standard No. 13 with regard to pipe supports and clearances between piping and concrete penetrations.
Implied Significance to Plant Design, Construction, and Operation If the water piping was not designed in accordance with this standard, the piping may be rendered inoperable due to support failure or stresses produced by building movement.
Assessment of Safety Significance By letter dated April 9,1985, the licensee confinned that certain fire protection piping is supported in accordance with ANSI Standard B.31.1 and the "Hosgni Seismic criteria". The licensee has concluded that, on the basis of a comparative analysis, these criteria meet or exceed the requirements of NFPA Standards Nos. 13 and 14. The remaining fire protection piping supports have been designed in accordance with the l
requirements of NFPA 13. The licensee has conducted a walkdown of the piping to confirm that these requirements have been met.
i
_ ~. -
/ With regard to the clearances between piping and concrete penetrations, the licensee has conducted a pipe stress analysis to assure the integrity of the piping. This is in accordance with Section 1-2 of NFPA Standard No.
- 13. On the basis of this analys,is, the licensee has_ con _gluded_that tha recomended clearances are not necessary.
Staff Position Sections C.2 and C.3 of Appendix A to BTP ApCSB 9.5-1 establish that NFPA Standards Nos. 13,14, 20, and 24 should be used in the design and installation of fire protection water supply systems, sprinkler systems, and standpipe and hose systems.
We have reviewed the fire protection program and fire hazards analysis submitted by the licensee. As part of the review, we visited the plant site to examine the relationship of safety-related components, systems, and structures in specific plant areas to both combustible materials and to associated fire detection and suppression systems. The overall objective of our review of the fire protection program was to ensure that, in the event of a fire at the facility, the units would be able to safely shut down and remain in a safe shutdown condition. Our review included an evaluation of the automatic and manually operated water fire suppression systems. Based on our evaluation, we concluded in Supplements Nos. 8 and 9 to the SER that the sprinkler and standpipe systems confonned with our protection guidelines and were, therefore, acceptable.
Action Required No further action required on the allegation.
TASK: Allegations 1514 and 1515 Characterization:
The water storage capacity for fire protection is inadequate and the water
c.
- distribution piping for standpipe outlets is n t l acccmodate the quantity of water rcquired for fire fi hti o
arge enough to g
ng.
Jmplied Significance to Plant Design,. Construction
,-and-Operatior-If the water storage capacity or pipe sizes were i quantity of water may not be available to suppress a finadequate, a s occur.
re, if one should Assessment of Safety Significance By letter dated February 22, 1985, the licensee c supply for fire fighting includes a 4.5 million gallononfimed that the w 300.000 gallon fire water tank.
reservoir and a contained in Appendix A to BTP APCSB 9.5-1.This supply exceeds fire protection piping, the licensee confirmed thWith regard to the size o supply oipes to standpipe and hose stations meets or exce d at the size of water requirements of NFPA Standard No.14.
e s the Staff Position (SeeresponsetoAllegation 1516.1517,1518)
Action Required No further action required on this allegation 9
i
-