ML16245A685
| ML16245A685 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley, Davis Besse, Surry, Crystal River, Maine Yankee, Rancho Seco, FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1979 |
| From: | Ross D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Brian Mcdermott Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16245A393 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-79-98 NUDOCS 7906250101 | |
| Download: ML16245A685 (3) | |
Text
t REGI 4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 MAY 1 7 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR: H. Denton, Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
D. Ross, Jr., Deputy Director, Division of Project Management, NRR
SUBJECT:
CONCERNS OF R. MCDERMOTT
References:
(1) Note from D. Ross to B. McDermott of 5/8/79 (2) Note: R. McDermott to D. Ross (thru W. Haass and D. Skovholt) of 5/14/79 (3) Memo W. Haass to D. Ross of 5/15/79 (4) Memo D. Skovholt to D. Ross of 5/15/79 The references (1-4) (copies enclosed) contain a dialogue on a contrasting technical viewpoint. I believe that the a-d items on p. 7 of Ref. 2 have been adequately treated in our ongoing work on Oconee. In due course I will ask Bob to review our SER and see if he shares this view. Bob's management has commented. W. Haass believes we should reexamine the 20-min HPI operation (as it might contribute to small LOCA probability) and the RCS pump operation.
D. Skovholt agrees with Walt's comments. These will be reexamined on 5/17.
This memo and the four references shall be placed in the PDR, in the docket file for each of the five B&W utilities under orders.
D. F. Ross, Jr., Deputy Director Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
As stated cc: T. Novak R. McDermott V. Stello D. Crutchfield W. Haass R. Boyd D. Skovholt R. Reid R. Mattson M. F4irtile E. Case
UNITED STATES 0
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 May 8, 1979 NOTE TO: B. McDermott FROM:
D. Ross, Jr.
SUBJECT:
SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF OPERATING B&W REACTORS As you know, we are in the process of issuing confirmatory orders on all operating B&W-designed reactors. These orders have some conditions to be met as a basis for continued operation, both short-term and long-term.
The bases for these orders may be found either in the April 25 NRR status report or in the generic B&W feedwater transient report (See R. Tedesco for a copy).
Through your efforts in evaluating the responses to bulletins issued to utilities using the B&W design, you have generated several notes and memos that relate to safety of continued or resumed operation of these plants.
As you know, we are developing information on Oconee based on your inputs relative to shutdown or continued operation. We are also pursuing the same topics on other reactors. The topics include role and reliability of AFW; response to small breaks (including stuck-open PORV); natural circulation; and transients which have the tendency to produce primary voiding.
The items covered in your several notes are, in my opinion, being addressed by both the staff and the regulated industry. In all likelihood we will be developing soon the basis for continued or resumed operation for the B&W plants, for the short-term at least. However, as a double check, what I want you to do is to go over your memoranda, answer the following questions, and then give me your opinion, in writing, as to whether (a) your concerns are being addressed, and (b) whether the residual uncertainty is, in your opinion, too great to continue or resume operation.
Let me emphasize that it is your expert opinion that is being solicited, so make this your individual effort. For the same reason it would not be especially useful to state "Michelson has a concern" (for example), unless you believe no one else is aware of your reference. In the interest of prompt resolution, try to have your report by Friday, May 11.
I re-read your memoranda to glean the topics; from them I got:
- 1. Performance of relief and safety valves under 2-or liquid conditions.
- 2. Performance of HPI pumps for small break at Davis Besse.
0,6 25O//
-2
- 3.
Reliability of AFW.
- 4. Core cooling in natural circulation; with or without voids, with or without AFW, with or without consequential small break (PORV).
In order to be most useful to us you should use as an outline:
.1. Statement of problem or concern.
- 2. Safety significance.
- 3. Your awareness of how it is being worked at NRC, and by whom.
- 4. Susceptibility to short-term resolution.
- 5. Your conclusion.
Let me emphasize that if there are other topics that I omitted, please fill them in. This work should reflect your own opinion, as ultimately we must decide whether this is a differing professional viewpoint in the sense of Office Letter No. 11.
Also, since there are several topics, you should complete a summation to see if the cumulative effect is, in your opinion, so burdensome as to preclude operation of some or all B&W designed reactors even for a limited period.
Finally, you should re-read Office Letter No.
19 on Board Notification to determine whether you have any additional duties in that connection.
You should regard this assignment as your number one priority, as the decision on Oconee is but a few days hence.
Submit your report to me through W. Haass and D. Skovholt, who will each be asked to comment or concur.
D. F. Ross, Jr.
cc:
E. Case R. Boyd D. Skovholt W. Haass R. Mattson V. Stello H. Denton