ML17272A694
| ML17272A694 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1979 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Strand N WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910300532 | |
| Download: ML17272A694 (9) | |
Text
OCT 9
1979 Docket Ho: 50-397 o
Vir. Neil. 0. Strand Washington Public Power Supply System'.
0.
Box 968 Richland, Was'hington 99352
SUBJECT:
HARK II POOL DYVAMIC LOADS PROGRAM - WPPSS-2
Dear ltr'. Strand:
The Mark II lead plant program is essentially complete, and we are now planning our review of the closure program for the Mark II pool dynamic loads.
A growing tendency of applicants to depend on plant-unique pro-grams, rather than generic programs, during the past year makes it nec-essary for us to request definition of the pool dynamic, loads programs being relied on by each Mark II owner, especially that part owhich falls outside the scope of the generic Mark II pool dynamic loads program.
We have believed for some time that joint efforts toward resolution of issues o'n a generic basis results in substantial cost and schedule savings to the NRC, the industry, and thus to the public.
We stated this view in April 1976 during the early stages of our review of the Marl II program, and again in September 1978 when the Mark II lead plant acceptance criteria were. issued.
On July 24, 1979 the staff met with the Mark II owners to discuss the closure efforts associated with the Mark II Long Term Program.
At this meeting,'he Mark II owners stated that the generic programs'ssociated with SRV and LOCA pool dynamic loads would be completed in 1979 and 1980, respectively.
However, the Nark II owners identified a number of plants requesting relief from the generic pool dynamic loads specifications.
This resulted in a comparable number of new plagt-unique programs.
Little information has bien pro-vided to the NRC defining these new plant-unique pool dynamic programs.
r onsidering the design differences between Mark II plants, and the various licensing schedules for plants, we see a limited need for re; liance on plant-unique pool dynamic load programs.
The limitations on staff technical resources, ho>aver, make it possible for us to complet OIoIolCE~
DDRNAMEoIN
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DATE~
REC POEM 518 (9-76) NRChf 0240 7..9.1
- U,O, OOVNNNMENT RNINTINO OIoIoICCI INTO 100 700 eD
~ ~
~ ~ ~ opS 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
t*
'9
~
~
i
0 Hr. Neil 0.Strand'CT 9
197g I
I our licensing, activities for these plants in,.a timely mannei. only if
-the Mark II owners pursue a generic approach to resol4tion of pool dynamic load issues to the maqimum extent practicable.
For those areas where a completely generic approach is'not acceptable, we encourage use of semi-generic apPt oaches, as in the case, of the lead plant owners and the KTG "T." quencher.
Another possible -sub-grouping'would be to combine analyses for plants with a commo'n "architect engineer.
He ask that you provide a description of those pool dynamic load tasks, outside the generic Mark II pool dynamic loads program, that are a par,t of your -pool dynamic loads definition'program.
Your response should. in-clude the following information:
task description rationale, f'r plant unique program I
task schedule documentation (contents and schedule).,-
T6is info'rmation should be provided to us by November. 15, 1979, so that we can plan our review efforts.
He anticipate a meeting to discuss these items at an early date following the submittal of'the letters.
The pur-
,pose of this meeting would be to determine the extent to which a generic or semi-generic approach has been pursued, and to obtain information.needed
~ by us 'to establish priorities for the.review of the various plants.
Until that time, we will continue to review the pool dynamic load program on a primarily 'generic basis.'e intend to review non-generic, pool dynamic.
load programs on the basis of available NRC resources, with review priorities for these programs established by the licensing schedule for each facility.
Sincerely, I
,Oyiginal signod uy 1
.S. A. Varga O
cc:
See next page S. A;.Varga, Acting Assistant Director for Light Hater Reactors Division'f Project Management OURNAMCW OATC~
DPM:
WR-4 AS ice 10/q /79 D M:
WR-4 DLynch 10i ml79
~
~
L n
ei
'"ioi 5 i7o n
~ \\
10 a
ga
/79 DPM:AD/LHR I ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
i 1CRC POEM 318 (976) NRCbC 0240
~
~
V I OOVCIIHMSPIT JIIINTINO OrrICCI 1 ~ 1 ~
jo ~
7 ~I
I It
~
lt
'I Ih t
q /
DISTRIBUTION:
NRC PDR L,veal PDR Docket Files-TERA LWR-4 Fil.e S.
Varga M. Williams B.
Moore R.
- Denise, DSS Rubenstein Project Manager Licensing Assistant (2)
- Attorney, ELD ISE (3) bcc:
~pa Rteg
+4 PO
+a*++
Docket No: 50-397 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 OCT S
1979 Hr. Neil 0. Strand Washington Public Power Supply System P. 0.
Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352
SUBJECT:
HARK II POOL DYNAMIC LOADS PROGRAM - WPPSS-2
Dear Mr. Strand:
The Mark II lead plant program is essentially complete, and we are now planning our review of the closure program for the Mark II pool dynamic loads.
A growing tendency of applicants to depend on plant-unique. pro-grams, rather than generic programs, during the past year makes it nec-essary for us to request definition of the pool dynamic loads programs being relied on by each Hark II owner, especially that part which faIls outside the scope of the generic Hark II pool dynamic loads program.
We have believed for some time that joint efforts toward resolution of i.ssues on a generic basis results in substantial cost and schedule savings to the NRC, the industry, and thus to the public.
We stated this view in April 1976 during the early stages of our review of the
'ark II program, and again in September 1978 when the Mark II lead plant acceptance criteria were issued.
On July 24, 1979 the staff met with the Mark II owners to discuss the closure efforts associated with the Mark II Long Term Program.
At this meeting, the Mark II owners stated
-.that the generic programs associated with SRV and LOCA pool dynami'c loads would be completed in 1979 and 1980, respectively.
However, the Hark II owners identified a number of plants requesting relief from the generic pool dynamic loads specifications.
This resulted in a comparable number of new plant-unique programs.
Little information has been pro-
, vided to the NRC defining these new plant-unique pool dynamic programs.
Considering the design differences between Mark II plants, and the various licensing schedules for plants, we see a limited need for re-liance on plant-unique pool dynamic load programs.
The limitations on staff technical resources,
- however, make it possible for us to complete
O.
Hr. Neil 0. Strand OCT S
1979 our licensing activities for these plants in a timely manner only if the Hark II owners pursue a generic approach to resolution of pool dynamic )oa4 issues to the maximum extent practicable.
For those areas where a completely generic approach is not acceptable, we encourage use of semi-generic approaches; as in the case of the lead, plant owners and the KTG "T" quencher; Another possible sub-grouping would be to combine analyses for plants with a common architect engineer.
We ask that you provide a description of those poo'1 dynamic load tasks,
'outside the generic. Hark, II pool dynamic loads program, that are a part '"
of your pool dynamic loads definition program.,
Your response should in-clude the following"information:-
task description-I rationale for plant unique program
.- task schedule documentation (contents and schedule).
This information should be=provided to us by November 15, 1979, so that we can plan our review efforts.
We anticipate a meeting to discuss these items at an early date following the submittal of the letters.
The pur-pose of this meeting would be to determine the extent to which a generic or semi-generic approach has been pursued, and to obtain information needed by us to establish priorities for the review of the various plants.
Until that time, we will continue to review the pool dynamic load program on a
primarily generic basis.
We intend to review non-generic pool dynamic load programs on the basis of available NRC resources, with review priorities for these programs established by the licensing schedule for each;facility.
Sincerely,-
cc:
See next page ivision of Project Hanagement
. Var a cting Assistant Director for Lig Water Reactors D
Washington Public Power Supply System CC:
Joseph B. Knotts, Jr.,
Esq.
Debevoise 8 Liberman
'1200 Seventeenth
- Street, H.
W..
Washington, D. C. 20036 Richard g; guigley, Esq.
Washington Public Power Supply System 3000 George Washington Way P. 0.
Box 968 Richland', Washington 99352
'icholas
- Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East-Fifth Avenue Olynpia, Washington 98504 tb.. 0.
K. Earle
'icensing Engineer P. 0.
Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352
'L