ML20132E100

Concludes That,Except as Listed,Matters Re Facility Application for OL Dealt W/Satisfactorily,Per ACRS 305th Meeting on 850912-14,ACRS Subcommittee 850911 Meeting in Washington,Dc & ACRS 840717 Rept

ML20132E100
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	09/16/1985
From:	Ward D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ACRS-R-1155, NUDOCS 8509300384
Download: ML20132E100 (7)

Text

W ec

<? UNITED STATES 8}) [g

- c N *w /.. r NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS k [% p

[ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

% ...e September 16, 1985 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Washington, D. C. 20555

SUBJECT:

ACRS REPORT ON FULL POWER OPERATION OF RIVER BEND STATION, UNIT 1 During its 305th meeting, September 12-14, 1985, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed the application of Gulf States Utilities Company (Applicant), acting on behalf of itself and as an agent for the Cajun Electrical Power Cooperative for a license to operate the River Bend Station, Unit 1 at full power. A Subcommittee meeting was held on September 11, 1985 in Washington, D. C. to consider this request.

During this review, we had the benefit of discussions with representa-tives of the Applicant and the NRC Staff. We also had the benefit of the documents referenced, including written coments from a member of the public. The Committee commented on the application to operate the River Bend Station in an interim report dated July 17, 1984 and on the application to construct this Station in its report dated January 14, 1975.

The Comittee, in its July 17, 1984 report, stated that it had not yet completed its review and listed a number of matters yet to be con-sidered. Except as indicated below, we conclude that these matters have been dealt with satisfactorily.

The Committee noted in its July 17, 1984 report that the dedicated diesel generator that drives the high pressure core spray (HPCS) pump was dependent on cooling water supplied by pumps powered by the other two emergency diesel generators during loss of off-site power con-ditions. The Applicant has modified the design to provide a power source for these cooling water pumps which is supplied by the dedicated diesel generator. We find this to be satisfactory.

The Committee also commented on the Applicant's plans for the per-formance of a limited probabilistic risk analysis and on the advis-ability of reviewing the seismic design margin for the equipment impor-tant to the accomplishment of safe shutdown. The Applicant has per-formed a limited PRA and has reviewed the seismic capability of some of the plant equipment and found considerable margin. Both of these issues are being addressed generically by the NRC Staff and the ACRS, and their resolution need not delay the issuance of the full power license for this unit.

8509300384 e50916 /

PDR ACRS 0@l ,

R-1155 PDR J

s Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino September 16, 1985 The Applicant and the NRC Staff have been working on the development of emergency operating procedures to cover possible containment venting in the event of certain postulated accidents beyond the design basis. We believe that further work is needed to develop an appropriate procedure for venting for River Bend but believe that the review and acceptance of such a procedure need not be completed prior to full power operation.

We recommend that resolution of this matter be accomplished within a year after the issuance of a full power operating license. We wish to have an opportunity to review the proposed resolution.

The matter of hydrogen control is still in a developmental stage. The Applicant is working with the Hydrogen Control Owners Group (HC0G) and is depending appreciably on a 1-scale experimental program by HCOG to develop data on burning conditions and resulting environments. We urge that sufficient diversity in postulated accident scenarios be used in judging matters such as potential hydrogen production rates. In view of the complex heat transfer and fluid mechanics phenomena involved and the associated uncertainties, the details of the experimental program will need careful analysis and proper attention will have to be given to extrapolating the A-scale results to full scale.

We agree that it is acceptable for River Bend to proceed to full power while resolution of the hydrogen control matter is pursued. We wish to review the proposed resolution when the necessary information and evaluation are available.

The Applicant does not plan to provide, for the hydrogen ignition system, a backup power source that would function during station black-out. We favor providing such a backup power source. We intend to address this issue in our future generic discussions on hydrogen con-trol.

We believe that, subject to the above comments and satisfactory comple-tion of construction, staffing, and preoperational testing, there is reasonable assurance that the River Bend Station, Unit 1 can be operated at power levels up to 2894 MWt without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

Sincerely, i

David A. Ward

. Chairman

References:

1. Gulf States Utilities Company, " Final Safety Analysis Report, River Bend Station," Volumes 1-20 and Amendments 1-21

Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino September 16, 1985

2. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of River Bend Station," NUREG-0989, dated May 1984

3. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of River Bend Station," NUREG-0989, Supplement No. 1 dated October 1984; Supplement No. 2 dated August 1985; Supplement No. 3 dated August 1985 4 Memo from Thomas M. Novak, NRC Division of Licensing, to Raymond F.

Fraley, ACRS, dated August 23, 1985,

Subject:

River Bend Station -

Draft SSER 4

5. Letter from Jerry N. Brown, member of the public, to Morton W.

Libarkin, NRC regarding ACRS Subcommittee review of Gulf States Utilities Company's application for an operating license for River Bend, dated September 5, 1985 i

m e

e _- - _ __-_-___---_--_--- _ ---_-_---- _ -- --------------0

, Emergency Planning

16. D. W. Moeller requested guidance regarding clarification of requests made by Comissioners Asselstine, Bernthal, and Zech (during the 303rd ACRS meeting) on consideration of extreme environmental phenomena in emergency planning. The Committee suggest that he speak dircctly to the Commissioners involved.

Report of the Reactor Operators Subcomittee

17. During a discussion of new pipe crack indications at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, D. Okrent requested assurance that BWR pipe cracking (major) will not adversely affect the public health and safety. G. A. Reed wondered if the metallurgy of the generic problem of BWR pipe cracking had finally been solved in spite of the continuing adverse nuclear plant experience.**

GESSAR II Electrical Concerns

18. C. J. Wylie expressed concern regarding the instrument and equipment grounding situation as well as plant lig.htning protection.**

Arbitrary Intermediate Breaks 19.

During a discussion of proposed changes to 10 CFR 50, Appendix A -

General Design Criterion 4, Environmental and Missile Design Bases, the NRC Staff discussed plant actions regarding an arbitrary designation of intermediate large diameter pipe breaks. Neither the Limited Scope Rule or the Broad Scope Rule applied. Equipment throughout a piping run is to be qualified for non-dynamic effects of a non-mechanistic pipe break with the greatest consequences for the equipment. Members pointed out that there would be no time history available for the pipe break and questioned why dynamic effects such as pressure reduction and cooling at the break should not be considered. D. A. Ward indicated that the Comittee will want to hear more on the issue of arbitrary intermediate breaks and suggested a separate subcommittee meeting to examine the issue.**

D, Okrent asked why the United Kingdom is not assuming the leak before break concept in its development of pipe break criteria. He requested that the Staff check into this matter with the British.

J. O'Brien, NRC, indicated that he would inquire why the United Kingdom does not accept leak before break.**

Natural Ability Selection of Reactor Operators 20.

A proposed report by G. A. Reed was discussed during this meeting.

It was deferred for further discussion during the 306th (October)

ACRS meeting.

1

Seismic Margins 21.

A proposed letter regarding seismic margins was discussed No specific time. action was taken regarding this letter due to a lack o .

Pressurized Thermal Shock 22.

P. G. Shewmon proposed that the ACRS take no action with re recent letters by D. Basdekas, NRC Staff, to Carl Johnson, RES, dated May 3, 1985 Representatives, datedand Augustto Congressman M. K. Udall, U.S. House of 22, 1985.

final action regarding this item due to a lack of time (Note:The D.

C Okrent has expressed his opposition to this proposed lack of actio so discussion will continue during the 306th ACRS meeting).

APPENDIX A

' OCTOBER ACRS MEETING FUTURE AGENDA Consideration emergency Asselstine, planning perof extreme

• ACRS meetingBernthal, requestsenvironmental and Zech phenom Report of during the 303rdof C 1 the ACRS Nuclear most significantPower n

saf Pla tSubcommittee

• of resolution Safety - Discussionofthe State ety-related issues i onn of the DiscussionNRC Policy Stateme need 11 Statement dated AuAdvanced of revised rs - Rnt on A the CommitteeBriefing by DEDROGRgust 1 hr 2

on Reviewregarding the General Elec activities of for this(GESSARa II) tric Standard of Generic Requirement s S 1f hr Report of standardized NSSS- w of Continue ACRS r the FDA regarding proposedthe Subcommittee 4 hrs Meteorological changes in NRC Regulaton es Regu Regulatory Guide 1 Measurement ms, ory Guides on: Progra 23 Revision PortionsCriteria of Instrum for Power Instrument SetpointSafety i hr ontro , Systems (e Meeting with on EPA NRC Task No. IC 609-5) l RadwasteStandards and Commissioners for Disp to ystems dis for Safe the ACRS role in thto discuss Commissiosal of program radwaste and the Civilian activities overall e NRC scheduleregulationon of rega guidance li hrs regard Safety Goal Policy rding NRC/DOEthe DOE rad containment performa - Subcommit tee

• and ACRS reviewDavis-Besse Plan only Restart nce guid TVA 'NRC i hr reorganizationNuclear Staff briefing Power Prog -

operation of its ram - Briefing reg 2 hr and construction nuclear power prograarding TVA's m both in I hr F .

NRC Staff reassessment and new position on accident 3 hrs l

source terms ACRS meeting dates for FY-1986 -- Discuss proposed ,

dates i i

Seismic Design Margins -- H. W. Lewis letter regarding overemphasis on seismic risk Report of the Procedures and Administration Subcommittee regarding implementation of the Panel on ACRS Effectiveness recommendations Proposed ACRS Report of G. A. Reed on Natural Aptitude Selection Testing Report of ACRS Subcommittee regarding proposed response defer to Commissioner Asselstine's inquiry on requalification to Nov.

of nuclear power plant operators Emergency Core Cooling -- Proposed changes in 10 CFR defer 50.46 Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light Water Nuclear Power Plants and Appeidix K, ECCS Evaluation Models

> lo W rde Nuclear Plant -- Review of the startup defer er arie. ce of Unit 1 to Nov.

t e?

$