ML17309A283

Discusses ACRS 267th Meeting on 820708-10 Re SEP Phase II Review.Stated Objectives Achieved & NRC Actions on SEP Assessment Acceptable

ML17309A283
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	08/18/1982
From:	Shewmon P Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ACRS-R-0987, ACRS-R-987, NUDOCS 8208230274
Download: ML17309A283 (7)

Text

I

~

REGULATORY FORMATION DISTRIBUTION SY M (RIDS)

ACCE'SSION NBR'8208230274 DOC ~ DATE: 82/08/18 NOTARI'ZED:

NO FACIL:50-244 Rober t Emmet Ginna Nuclear Planti Unit ii Rochester AUTH,NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION SHEbMONiPs ACRS - Advisory ~Committee on Reactor Safeguards REtC IP NAME RFCIP IENT AFFILIATION PALLADINOiN,J,

-Commissioner s

SUBJECT:

Discusses ACRS ?67th meeting on 820708-10 re SEPiPhase II

.review, Stated objectives achieved 8

NRC actions in SEP assessment acceptable, DISTRIBUTION CODE; YAOIS COPIES:RECEIVED:LTR, g ENCL.J SIZE:

TITLE: ACRS Letters NOTES:NRR/DL/SEP icy'OCKET

¹ 05000244 05000244 RECIP lENT ID CODE/NAME ICOPIES LTTR ENCL RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME COPIES LTTR ENCL INTERNAL: EDO IE/DEP EPDS NRR/CRBRPO DIR NRR/DE/ADCSE NRR/DE/ADMQE NRR/DE/AEAB NRR/DE/EQB NRR/DE/HGEB NRR/DE/MTEB NRR/DE/SAB NRR/DHFS DEPY NRR/DHFS/LQB NRR/DHFS/PTRB NRR/DL/ADL NRR/DL/ADSA NRR/DL/LB2 NRR/DL/ORAB NRR/DL/ORB2 NRR/DL/ORB4 NRR/DL/SEPB NRR/DSI DIR NRR/DSI/ADRP NRR/DSI/ASB NRR/DSI/CSB NRR/DS I/ICSB NRR/DSI/RAB NRR/DST DIR NRR/DST/ADT NRR/DST/LGB NRR/DST/RSCB N

'EPY EXTERNAL:.LPDR NSIC NOTES:

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

,1, 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

IE/DEP D IR IE/DEP/EPLB NRR/DE DIR NRR/DE/ADBT NRR/DE/ADPS NRR/DE/CEB NRR/DE/GB NRR/DE/MEB NRR/DE/QAB NRR/DE/SEB NRR/DHFS/HFEB NRR/DHFS/OLB NRR/DL D IR NRR/DL/ADOR NRR/DL/LB1 NRR/DL/LB3 NRR/DL/ORB1 NRR/DL/ORB3 NRR/DL/ORBS NRR/DL/SSPB NRR/DSI/ADOCS NRR/DSI/AEB NRR/DSI/CPB NRR/DS I/ETS8 NRR/DSI/PSB NRR/DS I/RSB NRR/DST/ADGP NRR/DST/GIB NRR/DST/RRAB NRR/DST/SPEB NRR/TMIPO D IR NRC PDR NTIS 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 2

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

11.

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

2 AL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED; LITTR 69 ENCL 69

i

'4 1>4 f FH,rhh IFI 4" NIV F'

fi

$ g hh lf I>>

g-4 N,fhr 7 kki >CH rv 1fhljr*

ll IH,,F 4

~

'4

,VI HIVV hii

'4 hq" ih VINi f 4

I ~ Vt'ff H'f

~ '> I VV,E1 r,'I j

)

~

I IV V

4

~ y,H II ll

'rl i

4 t

l VI ilk yves I

J'44 f h

Vh F

4 VV ~

4 lh "HN hv

.Ir 4

'h Hr r

h,'l 4

4 g It 4

'h p,

4 i

fk 4

q~btlg4(g

~c

+

~

0 fy

(

0 re P

r ce

+w*w+

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORYCOMMITTEE ON REACTOR,SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. d. 20555

'I

\\

August 18, 1982 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

SUBJECT:

ACRS REPORT ON THE SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM REVIEW OF THE R.

E.

GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT During its 267th

meeting, July 8-10,

1982, the ACRS reviewed the results of the Systematic Evaluation

Program, Phase I,I, as it has been applied to the R.

E.

Ginna Nuclear Power'lant.

These matters were also discussed during a

Subcommittee meeting in Washington, D.C.

on June 3, 1982.

During

'our

reviews, we had the benefit of discussions with representatives of the Rochester Gas'nd Electric Corporation (Licensee) and'he NRC Staff.

We also had the benefit of the documents listed below.

We completed our report regarding this matter during the 268th meeting, August 12-14, 1982.

Our first review of Phase II of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) was carried out in connection with its application to the Palisades Plant.

Our findings from that review were'ddressed in a letter to you dated May ll,

'982.

Our continuing review of the SEP, in relation to the Ginna Plant, has resulted in no changes in our previous findings and comments as they relate to the SEP program in general'.

Mr. William J.

Dircks responded to some of those comments in a letter dated June 7, 1982.

We find his response accept-ablee.

The remainder of this letter relates s'pecifically to the SEP review of the Ginna Plant.

Of the

.137 topics to be addressed in the

SEP, 21.were not applicable to the Ginna Plant, and 24'were deleted from the review because they were being reviewed generically under either the Unresolved Safety-Issues (USI) program or the TMI Action Plan.

Of the 92.topics addressed in the Ginna Plant

review, 58 were found to meet current NRC criteria or to be acceptable on another defined basis.

Seven topics were later added to this category as a

result of modification's made or committed to by the Licensee during the review.

We have reviewed the assessments and conclusions of the NRC Staff relating to these topics and have found them appropriate.

For all or part of the remaining 27 SEP topics, the Ginna Plant was found not to meet current criteria.

These topics were addressed by the Integr'ated Assessment and have been resolved to various degrees and in various ways.

8208230274 820818 PDR ACRB R-O'987 PDR 8207180075 gaol r

Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino 2

August 18, 3982 The Integrated Assessment has not yet bee'n completed for portions of seven topics; for which additional information must be provided by the Licen-see.

This information includes the results of studies, calculations, and evaluations that are required by the NRC Staff for its assessments and decisions.

Six of. these topics relate to structural design and the Licen-see has proposed a coordinated program for thei r resolution.

The NRC Staff has agreed to this program.

The resolution of these topics will be addressed by the NRC Staff in a supplemental report that will be available for revie'w in connection with the application for a

Full-Term Operating License (FTOL) for the Ginna Plant.

For portions of ten topics included in the Integrated Assessment, the NRC Staff concluded that no backfit is required.

We concur.

For the remaining topics for which the assessment has been completed, the NRC Staff requires the addition or modification of structures or equipment, or the development or modification of procedures or technical specifics-tionss.

Except for the three topics discussed below, the Licensee has agreed to the resolution required by the NRC Staff.

One area of disagreement relates to the groundwater level and the associ-ated hydrostatic pressures that the structures below gcade must withstand.

The plant was designed assuming a groundwater elevation of 250 ft.

Although limited observations from borings.have shown the groundwater to be near that elevation, there has been no program of continuing measurement to demonstrate that the level does not exceed 250 ft. during periods of pro-

. longed precipitation.

In the absence of'uch a

program, the NRC Staff has determined that the effects of groundwater should be evaluated for an assumed elevation at the surface of the

ground, approximately 270 ft.

for the structures of.interest.

We believe that such an evaluation should be made.

We recommend that acceptability of the structures be based on "no loss of function" and not on arbitrary limits of stresses computed using linear-elastic assumptions.

A second topic for which resolution has not been reached relates to flooding of the site by Deer

Creek, a small stream flowing into Lake Ontario in the vicinity of the'plant.

Flooding from Deer Creek was not considered when the plant was originally licensed; Lake Ontario was the only source of flooding considered by the Applicant and the AEC Staff at that time.

Neither th'e NRC Staff nor the Licensee consider this question to be resolved, nor do we.

~

Since flooding is an important matter that may have implications for other operating plants, we plan to continue our review of flood criteria,'both for

~

the Ginna Plant and on a more generic basis, and to provide our comments or recommendations when that review is completed.

Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino 3

~

August 18, -1982 The third topic for which agreement has not yet been reached concerns several containment isolation valves that do not satisfy the requirements of General.Design Criterion No.

57.

In view of-,the generally acceptable and well-considered manner in which the NRC'taff has evaluated'he numerous other topics related to isolation valves, we believe that this topic should be resolved in a manner satisfactory to the NRC Staff.

As was the case for the Palisades

Plant, a plant-specific Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) was not available for the Ginna Plant.

In its

absence, the NRC Staff made careful and conservative use of a limited and essentially qualitative risk assessment,based in part on the 'Reactor Safety Study, for a three-loop Westinghou'se plant and in part on the Interim Reliability Evaluation Program PRA for the Crystal River Plant, a

two-loop Babcock

& Wi.lcox plant.

From even this limited use of a PRA, it is clear that many of the decisions involved in the SEP could be made much more

. rationally if plant-specific PRAs were available.

Our conclusions can be summarized as follows:

1.

The SEP has been carried out in such a manner that the stated objectives have been achieved for the most part for the Ginna Plant and should be achieved for the remaining plants in Phase II of the program.

2.

The actions taken thus far by the NRC Staff in its SEP assessment of the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant are acceptable.

3.

The ACRS will defer its review of the FTOL for the Ginna Plant until the NRC Staff has completed its actions on the remaining SEP topics and the USI and TMI Action Plan "items.

Sincerely, P.

Shewmon Chairman

References:

1.

U.S.

NRC Draft Report, "Integrated Plant Safety Assessment, Systematic Evaluation

Program, R.

E.

Ginna Nuclear Power Plant,"

NUREG-0821, dated May 1982.

2.

NRC Staff Consultants'eview of the R.

E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

~

Integrate'd Plant Safety Assessment Report including Consultant Reports from R. J. Budnitz, S.

H.

Bush, J.

M. Hendrie, H. S. Isbin.,

and Z. Zudans.

R.

E.

Ginna SEP Topic, Safety Evaluation Reports, Yolumes 1 through 3, dated May, 1982.

4.

U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Clarification of TMI Actioh 'Plan Requirements,"

NUREG-0737, dated November 1980

0 k