ML20214G789
| ML20214G789 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1977 |
| From: | Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0184, CON-WNP-184 NUDOCS 8605220510 | |
| Download: ML20214G789 (7) | |
Text
2 s/2&
Occket No. 50-397 psi 3BANDUM FOR:
R. S. Boyd, Director, Division of Project itanagement F10M:
D. B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for D!Rs, DPI SUBJDCT:
ACCEPTMCE REVIEW OF ' lib FSAR FOR 'Dia W.4P-2 FACILITY (FORMERLY HMFORD 2)
Background
Cn :tarch 21, 1977, the Wasnington Fuclic Power Supply System (WPPSS) tendered its Final Safety Analysis Report as part of its application 'for a license to operate a single unit GE MR-5hiark II (1103 %'e) nuclear power plant which is under construction in the southeast region of the Energy Researca and Develccment Agency's tian: crc 8eservation in Benton County, about 12 miles nortn of Ricnland, Washington. This facility is designated as the Washington Nuclear Plant No. 2 (MiP-2) and is scheculed for cc.:pletion in June 1930. The acolication and the ER were previously tendered on Decerter 30, 1976, ano the ER was docketed on April 20, 1977.
Review Conclusion
}
We have co:::pleted our acceptance review of tne XW-2 FSAR anc recoranend that the tendered application be rejected. While the FSNI is judged to be reascnably complete in alnost all areas of review, there are significant deficiencies in three s:;ecific areas of review. In particular, the Instrumentation and Controls aranca anu the Power System Branch have prepared an extensive list of questions wnich. clearly indicates that the design of tne of the 'cu-2 tacility in these areas has oeen poorly descrioed in the F3Tdi, thereby preventing a tirely review from being accomolished. Additionally, the applicant has provided an incorrect description of the actual reactor systems wnicn s
are ceing incorporatec into the facility. Accordingly, we recCEDend that the apolication not ce accepted for docketing until the UPPSS organization responds to the staff's extensive list of questions regarcing these deticiencies.
In this regard, it should be noted that Corcronwealtn Edison required i
aoout a half year to resnond to the staff's questions regarding instrumentation and controls on its LaSalle aoolication, therecy necessitating a schedule slip on LaSalle.
Additionally, tne Zimer a plication has excerienceo extennive senedule slips tor similar proolems. Since many of the staff's questions on the instrumentation Mf and control design of the R:P-2 facility are similar to those asKea en tne LaSalle acolication, WPPSS snould be caoacle of respoiming on y
+-1 1 - -
- m,- o4*hin *sn ru ve '; m e.* M.
I I
" " ' * ' * -- 8605220510 770624 PDR ADOCK 05000397 ou.....,
- A PDR
(
[
oars h NRC FORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 W u. s. sovsamme nt pasarme o,,ics, s ore - eme4:4
It is particularly imoortant to note at this point that althougn this is the third OL application for a BWR-5Alark II reactor facility, the instrumentation and controls section reflecta little, if arrf, of the benefits of the previous staff review of this particular area of review.
Therefore, by requiring the applicant to respond to tne questions of the Instrumentation and Controls Brancn and the Power Systems Brancn prior to docketing, we should be able to renove a raajor carrier to a tinely review of the WNP-2 application.
Additionally, the seismic design basis ground motion for the W P-2 facility is subject to an intensive re-evaluation in lignt of the information regarding the December 1672 earthquake which has recently oectrae available. In order to avoid any difficulty with this application similar to that experienced witn the Diablo Carrfon facility, it is important, if not imperative tnat the acplicant be required to promotly re-evaluate its conclusions regarding the seistaicity of tne site.
Since the applicant has heretofore expressed its reluctance to perform this re-evaluation in the manner requested by the staff, I reconcend that tno applicant also be required to rescond to tne three questions in the acceptance review pertaining to geology and seismology prior to docketing the WP-2 application.
In a meeting with WPPSS and its consultants on'May 25, we learned tnat an extensive re-evaluation of the seismicity of the region is currently being perforrred by the utility. A report of these investigations is expected on August 15 of this year. This time scale is consictent with that which will be required to respond to the staff's questicns regarding tne instrumentation and controls and the power systems.
We have prepared a letter with an enclosure to the applicant for your signature which incorporatea the recocrendations discusced above and indicating all the deficiencies in detail, i
D. B. Vassallo, esaistant Di e tor for Light Water Reactors Division of Project Managerent.
A J
_Lun
-LWR'4 mmAD/LWRsN orric a w MDLynch:n
$(V4rga
'0BVassallF 6/20/77 6/4
/77 6/3J//77 NRCFORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 W u. s. sovanaswent amasvine orrica neve-ese.ess
=
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket file NRC PDR Local PDR NRR Reading LWR-4 Reading RSBoyd RCDeYoung DBVassallo FJWilliams HSmith SAVarga MDLynch JRutberg PShuttleworth KGoller i
TIppolito IE(3)
HDenton VAMoore RHVollmer MLErnst WPGammill TIppolito FRosa i
TNovak VBenaroya Glainas ISihweil JCollins PCollins DBunch WKreger JCStepp LGHulman 4
[p2 EtCg97 UNITED STATES k
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y'
f WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 e
,o
+....
June 24, 1977 Docket No. 50-397 MEMORANDUM EOR:
R. S. Boyd, Director, Division of Project Management FIOM:
D. B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for LWRs, DPM SUfk1ECT:
ACCEPIANCE REVIEW OF THE FSAR FOR THE WNP-2 FACILITY (FORMERLY HANFORD 2)
Background
On March 21, 1977, the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) tendered its Final Safety Analysis Report as part of its application for a license to operate a single unit GE BWR-5/ Mark II (1103 MWe) nuclear power plant which is under construction in the southeast region of the Energy Research and Development Agency's Hanford Reservation in Benton County, about 12 miles north of Richland, Washington. This facility is designated as the Washington Nuclear Plant No. 2 (WNP-2) and is scheduled for coapletion in June 1980. The application and the ER were previously tendered on December 30, 1976, and the ER was docketed on April 20, 1977 Review Conclusion We have completed our acceptance review of the WNP-2 FSAR and recomend that the tendered application be rejected. While the FSAR is judged to be reasonably complete in almost all areas of review, there are significant deficiencies in three specific areas of review.
In particular, the Instrumentation and Controls Branch and the Power System Branch have prepared an extensive list of questions which clearly indicates that the design of the of the WNP-2 facility in these areas has been poorly described in the FSAR, thereby preventing a timely review from being accomplished. Additionally, the applicant has provided an incorrect description of the actual reactor systems which are being incorporated into the facility. Accordingly, we recomend that the application not be accepted for docketing until the WPPSS organization responds to the staff's extensive list of questions regarding these deficiencies.
In this regard, it should be noted that Commonwealth Edison required about a half-year to respond to the staff's questions regarding instrumentation and controls on its LaSalle application, thereby necessitating a schedule slip on LaSalle.
Additionally, the Zimmer application has experienced extensive schedule slips for similar problems. Since many of the staff's questions on the instrumentation and control design of the WNP-2 facility are similar to those asked on the LaSalle application, WPPSS should be capable of responding on this matter within the next 2 months.
. It is particularly important to note at this point that although this is the third OL application for a BWR-5/ Mark II reactor facility, the instrumentation and controls section reflects little, if any, of the benefits of the previous staff review of this particular area of review.
Therefore, by requiring the applicant to respond to the questions of the Instrumentation and Controls Branch and the Power Systems Branch prior to docketing, we should be able to remove a major barrier to a timely review of the hNP-2 a plication.
Additionally, the seismic design basis ground motion for the hNP-2 facility is subject to an intensive re-evaluation in light of the information regarding the December 1872 earthquake which has recently become available. In order to avoid any difficulty with this application similar to that experienced with the Diablo Canyon facility, it is important, if not imperative that the applicant be required to promptly re-evaluate its conclusions regarding the seismicity of the site.
Since the a@licant has heretofore expressed its reluctance to perform this re-evaluation in the manner requested by the staff, I recommend that the applicant also be required to respond to the three questions in the acceptance review pertaining to geology and seisnology prior to docketing the WNP-2 application.
In a meeting with WPPSS and its consultants on May 25, we learned that an extensive re-evaluation of the seismicity of the region is currently being performed by the utility. A report of these investigations is expected on August 15 of this year. This time scale is consistent with that which will be required to respond to the staff's questions regarding the instrumentation and controls and the power systers.
We have prepared a letter with an enclosure to the applicant for your signature which incorporates the reconmendations discussed above and indicating all the deficiencies in detail.
jM C]
D. B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors Division of Project Management l
l l
t
o
_lk.'Q/hLY MEMO ROUTE SUP 5++****"S*-
- =="'a**
^
F a' a**-
Forte AIC-95 (Rev. May 4, l947) AECM 0240 Nde and revra.
For spraature.
y For in%r *stloa.
TO (Name and unit)
WTIALS REJ8AAEs E. Markee, Leader Meteorology Section THRU: F. Congel, Leadt.r RIS TO (Name and un#t)
WTIAL3 Rtasaans l
l cc: W. Kreger, Chief 1
RAB urs TO (Name and unit) uanALs Rtasaans Daft FROM (Name and untO ptMaats R. Gotchy, RIS/RAB SPECIAL LOCATIONS FOR WPPSS-2 APPENDIX I ASSESSMENT Enclosed are the special locations for WPPSS-2; please provide th e anorceriate met data for completion of the Radiological Impact Lssessment. Also provide the 50 mile dispersion parameters for (nnt for Aco. II.
'Sc with the ME"? pc;uhtier dcre SS!esent on Thanks!
2-7955 7/21/77 t
==
e
// 2
' I I
f O
1 WPPSS-2 l
SPECIAL LOCATIONS (miles)
DIRECTION NEAREST RES/ GARDEN /Mll.K NEAREST SITE SOUNDARY l
l N
0.3 NNE 7
0.3 l
NE 5
0.4 ENE 4
1.1 E
4 1.5 ESE 4
1.2 SE 4
11. 8 SSE 6
0.7 S
0.7 SSW 0.7 i
SW 7
0.6 0.5 l
WSW 0.2 W
0.2 WNW 0.3 NW NNW 0.3 3
I t
f I
J g
r i
..- -.