ML20236W923
| ML20236W923 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000470 |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1987 |
| From: | Vissing G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712080316 | |
| Download: ML20236W923 (6) | |
Text
.;
December 3, 1987 Docket No. STN 50-470 MEMORANDUM FOR: The record--
FROM: Guy S. Vissing, Project Manager Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, Y and Special Projects
SUBJECT:
TRANSMITTAL OF MATERIAL VIA TELECOPY IN RESPONSE TO '
A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF NOVEMBER 19, 1987 The enclosed material was transmitted to me in. response to a telephone
~
conversation involving members of the Reactor Systems Branch and representatives of Combustion Engineering. The material provide information concerning the System 80 design and was provided by Combustion Engineering on November 30, 1987. The material should be added to the file of Docket No. STN.50-470.
original signed by Guy S. Vissing, Project Manager.
Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, Y and Special Projects
Enclosure:
As stated cc: R. Jones C. Y. Liang CONTACT:
G. Vissing NRR/PDSNP Ext. 28208 DISTRIBUTION:
CDocket~Eile;
' NRC" PDR'2 PDSNP Reading GVissing LRubenstein PDSNP GVi 12 /87 8712080316 871203 PDR ADOCK 05000470 R PDR
- b UNITED STATES 8 o,f, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, ;{ .$ WASHINGTON, D. C. 70555 l g [ _ December 3, 1987 Docket No. STN 50-470 1
MEMORANDUM FOR: The record -
FROM: Guy S. Vissing, Project Manager ;
Standardization and Non-Power Reactor i Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V 1 i
and Special Projects j
SUBJECT:
TRANSMITTAL OF MATERIAL VIA TELECOPY IN RESPONSE TO I A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF NOVEMBER 19, 1987
{
I The enclosed material was transmitted to me in response to a telephone conversation involving members of the Reactor Systems Branch and representatives
,of Combustion Engineering. The material provide information concerning the l
System 80 design and was provided by Combustion Engineering on November 30, l 1987. The material should be added to the file of Docket No. STN 50-470.
(
l uy S. Vissing, Project Manager Standardization and Non-Power Reactor l Project Directorate !
Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, Y and Special Projects ,
i
Enclosure:
1 As stated cc: R. Jones i C. Y. Liang f t
s 1
'l I
1 l
CONTACT:
G. Vissing l PDSNP/NRR l- _ Ext. 28208 l
1 1
l
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Y s
( : . .. . .
Telecepy Coww Sheet (303) 285 5203.(Automatic)
DATE_ 88 Id h2 TIME d 1/ E @#PL NUCLEAR LICENSING DEPARTMENT - '
COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC i
WINDSOR CONNECTICUT k
gct j
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING 70:
NAME:
- 94td f 84 [M1 COMPANY: J Y8I I
- PHONE'/ EX7: _
MfN === $ E '
NAME: __ -
A I e a * '_" e PHONE / EXT: _
se
- M == N P == [* a C THis IS P,AG 1 WITH _- '
PAGES TO POLLO.W lii S:
.,%, em --
-)
. % _~
II f3clty G ,, ,
[ llfIT Ws. Ao 'IA be OJ' # (. aL te r- C. .
ySma all on eksmg oJ He M;he.ry- 1 F2-r Ir y I'3 % .
C%e. of % m sw &
e,sh-L esAm w 4A va.b kr y .f %p" 11 , reau " -
1
.c M.w J. w .rse d y m e~-ker.
i
[ ' be d- p- >A 'NL c% g ,p YL NR C'.s re<>tw of M e, f,w .
l
& S. s lys n ,'
$ 12e is s 90 R a c - io n w LI s L h n E d 0*
c a. a n unen.
\
&7ha.- se~ b s 4 v d 3 d r h , o F A/2 C w A .ci n ,
k % d .s L b is ddee'.ua.diu swie~wf-io h & Vas %-da .m),
seg, (y.y y pg a-6 ey.e Y
,_ -.e tL+
aw
'P. t/ -L $7f, a' .
Peue en, -hs cE.
c,.Lr7e.We. c w ~ Y. ,1 de 4Mw & L m,f? a' pM qer-. g4-SW ,
.l l I NRC QUESTION 3
)
1 Provide a detailed description of what ANPP considers to be safety grado design I requirements and how ANPP applies these requirements to systems and components 1 that are specified as safety related. In particular, discuss how these require-ments were applied to the auxiliary spray system and whether the identified {
j deficiencies in the auxiliary spray system resulted from a failure to apply i them to the system. l ANPP Response In the October 22, 1985, letter, ANPP stated thtt safet ments are provided in the general design criteria (GDC)yofgrado design 10 CFR require- A, 50, Appendix ,
and acceptable methods for meeting the GDC are provided in guidelines from the NRC staff. The staff's guidelines for the APSS is provided in BTP RSB 5-1 L
,which included implementation for Class 2 plants. ANPP asserted that APSS de- l sign is consistent with the guidelines provided in BTP RSB 5-1. The NRC's acceptance of the design was provided in its Safety Evaluation Reports for CESSAR and Palo Verde plants. i Staff Evaluation !
ANPP's response does not address the safety-grade design requirements applicable l to the'SGTR mitigation. In performing its safety-related function during an j accident, the staff would not give credit for extended operator actions (such I as local manual ventin 9 basis safety analyses.g Also, from afor hydrogen bound compliance withcharging BTP RBS pump) in the 5-1 for licensing Class 2 plants, operator actions outside the control room would be acceptable only if they could be justified and approved by the staff.
Therefore, the APSS was not designed consistent with the staff guidance dis-cussed above. This is evidenced by the corrective measures planned or now being implemented to upgrade the APSS to the standards for Class 2 plants under BTP RSB 5-1. ,
SUMMARY
."i The staff's October 2, 1985, letter contained the three questions described and evaluated above, and also contained four staff concerns that somewhat over-lap these questions. Staff Concerns 1, 2, and 4 in the said letter relate to the design of APSS, SGTR analysis, and the charging punp operation. These have been addressed in the evaluation of NRC Question 1, above.
l In response to Concern 3, ANPP asserted in its letter of October 22, 1985, that the existino Palo Verda desion inas not affect the staff't conclusion stated in NUR!G-1040 " Evaluation of thn Weed for n Raoid Oeotmssur' zution Canabilitv fof
.I LE alantn' (December 1984L 'his is aga'n because, 'n the icensee's view, thT design o" the APSS met the requirements of BTP RSB 5-1 for Class 2 plants. The staff's view is that with the newly identified unreliability of the APSS, the staff PORV study may be affected. Specifically, the portion of the study that relates to the use of the APSS in meeting BTP RSB 5-1 and the regulatory cri-teria for SGTR would be impacted. However. wit, the enhaneamentu to the APSS.
I the staff study and conclusion with respect to 3TP RSB 5 1 is va itL The staff stuoy with respect to the 5GTR would be changed since the applicant now relies Y Palo Verce J5ER 10 (
4 Appendix H t I
~ ~ -
~
Gn the RCS vent system. The staff's conclusion that the applicant meets the SGTR upon.
regulatory criteria remains valij, although tne APSS is no longer relied tiowever, with the ANPP committed enhancements, the reliability of APSS har been ilnoroved, so that the staf f conclusion stated in NUREG-1044 remains valid for Salo Verde Although ANPP's responses to the NRC letter of October 2, 1985, do not provide direct answers to each question, the staff finds that technical concerns ad- .
t
. dressed in the October 2 letter have been resolved by ANPP's responses. The detailed staff evaluation of this issue has been reported in SER Supplerent 9.
The staff considers that ANPP has completed its actions required by the NRC '
letter of October 2, 1985, with the commitments discussed, i
i i
j
)
.. 1
)
J I
l Palo Verde SSER 10 5 Appendix M !
l s op m rDm"*# " # "
_