ML25195A147
| ML25195A147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/13/1979 |
| From: | Carbon M Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC/Chairman |
| References | |
| Download: ML25195A147 (1) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman March 13, 1979 U.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, OC 20555
SUBJECT:
REPORT CN WILLIAM H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR PC1tlER STATION, UNIT 1
Dear Dr. Hendrie:
During its 227th meeting, March 8-10, 1979, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards completed its review of the application of the Cin-cinnati Gas and Electric Company (CG&E), the Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company, and the Dayton Power and Light Company (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Applicants) for authorization to oper-ate the William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1. a:;&E will be responsible for operating the plant. A tour of the facility was made by members of the Subcommittee on November 16, 1978 and the applica-tion was considered at Subcommittee meetings on November 17, 1978 and February 27, 1979.
During its review, the Committee had the benefit of discussions with representatives and consultants of the Applicants, the General Electric Company, Sargent and Lundy Company, Kaiser Engi-neers Incorporated and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff.
The Committee also had the benefit of the documents listed. 'Ihe Com-mittee reported on the application for a construction permit for this plant on September 17, 1971.
The Zimmer Nuclear Power Station is located in Ohio on the Ohio River approximately 24 miles southeast of Cincinnati and one-half mile north of Moscow, Ohio. 'Ihe plant will utilize a 2436.MWt BWR/5 boiling water reactor which is similar to the BWR/4 used in the F.dwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2. A principal difference is the use of recirculation flow control valves to regulate power rather than pump speed control which has been used on plants of the a,.rn/4 type.
The Zimmer Nucl~ar Power Station has a Mark II pressure suppression containment and is designated as one of the lead plants for this type containment. 'Ihe NRC Staff has reviewed the generic aspects of the Mark II containment system and has reported its findings in NUREX:i-0487.
The generic aspects of Mark II load evaluation and acceptance criteria were considered at Subcommittee meetings on July 7-8, 1977, November 30, 1977, May 23, 1978, and November 28-30, 1978. 'Ihe Committee believes that the acceptance criteria are suitable for the lead Mark II plants.
1859
Honorable Jose'(Xl M. Hendrie 2 -
March 13, 1979 The Applicants have taken exception to some of the acceptance criteria developed by the NRC Staff. 'Ihe Staff and the Applicants are continu-ing to work together to resolve this matter. 'Ihe Committee wishes to be kept informed.
'!he Mark II CMners Group and the NRC Staff are continuing to develop information relating to the method of combining loads on the contain-ment structure. However, the Applicants have indicated that they will accept the NRC Staff's current, perhaps overly conservative, methodology, to expedite the licensing action. 'Ihe Committee considers this acceptable.
'Ihe NRC Staff has determined that the present Emergency Core Cooling System analysis contains adequate margins for assessing the performance of the Zimmer Plant. It should be noted that recent tests in the Two Loop Test Apparatus (TLTA} have produced new data on the rate of vapor-ization of emergency core cooling water. 'Ihe NRC Staff believes that further analysis of the TLTA test results may require changes in the General Electric model for calculation of this vaporization rate in order to reflect more accurately the observed physical phenomena. 'Ihe Committee wishes to be kept informed.
In view of the important role of the Operational Review Committee in pro-viding oontinuing reviews, and in updating and implementing safety meas-ures, the ACRS recommends that the Operational Review Committee inclooe additional experienced personnel from outside the corporate structure as voting members for the first few years of operation.
With regard to the generic items cited in the Committee's report, "Status of Generic Items Relating to Light Water Reactors: Report No. 6," dated November 15, 1977, those items considered relevant to Zimmer are: II-4, Sb, 6, 7, 8, 10; IIA-4; IIB-4; IIC-1, 3A, 3B, 5; IID-2. 'Ihese items should be dealt with by the NRC Staff and the Applicants as solutions are found.
'!he Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards believes that, if due consid-eration is given to the items mentioned above, and subject to satisfactory completion of construction and preoperational testing, the William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 can be operated without t.mdue risk to the health and safety of the p.iblic.
~~~
Chairman 1860
Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie 3 -
March 13, 1979 References:
- 1. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, *Final Safety Analysis Report, William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1,* with Amendments 23 through 82.
- 2. u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), *safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of William H. Zimmer Nuclear Po\ver Station, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-358,* USNRC Report NUR00-0528, dated January 31, 1979.
- 3. u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria,* USNRC Re-port NUREG-0487, dated October, 1978.
1861