ML17346A316
| ML17346A316 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/19/1984 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Speis T, Thompson H, Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8404300021 | |
| Download: ML17346A316 (3) | |
Text
~S RK0II~
0 c
C -'y 0O C
\\
Cy
+~
~O
+**++
i UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 O'R 18 ]g8y
~g9 MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Themis P. Speis, Director Division of Safety Technology Richard H. Vollmer, Director
'ivision of Engineering Roger J. Mattson, Director Division of Systems Integration Hugh L. Thompson, Director Division of Human Factors Safety Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing AEOD CASE STUDY REPORT -
LOW TEMPERATURE OVERPRESSURE EVENTS AT TURKEY POINT UNIT 4 AEOD has completed the enclosed Case Study Report on the low temperature overpressure (LTOP) events of November 1981. at Turkey Point Unit'.
The report includes a detailed evaluation of the Turkey Point events followed by a broad discussion of NRR's generic resolution of multi-plant issue B-4, "Reactor Vessel Overpressure Protection."
The Turkey Point events represent the first cases where the Appendix G curves were exceeded for a PWR since NRR resolved the generic issue in 1979.-
The Case Study identifies deficiencies in the staff's Standard Technical Specifications and discusses an NRR survey that concluded that only about 25K of operating PWRs have adequate LTOP systems and corresponding Technical Specifications.
The NRR peer review acknowledged that we are in basic agreement with the recommendations made in the Case Study.
In addition the peer review, which is enclosed for your information, made a number of commitments for NRR action.
These commitments include (numbers correspond to the peer review memorandum):
l.
An examination of our in-house generic program on LTOP to determine 'the most efficient means of correcting the Technical Specification deficiencies.
5.
Development of a plan to encourage licensees to increase the pressure setpoint for automatic isolation of the RHR system to increase the margin to the PORV opening setpoint.
6.
Consider modifying the STS to require periodic revisions to PORV pressure relief setpoints whenever revisions to the AppeIIdix G pressure/temperature limits are made due to continued irradiation of primary system pressure boundary components.
840430002i 8404i9 PDR ADOCK OS00025i 8
la
>8,8~
NRR Division Directors 10.
Both the STS section of SSPB and RSB volunteered to meet with AEOD to draft revised Technical Specifications for LTOP concerns.
The AEOD Case Study has been submitted for our final review and comment.
DL has been tasked with developing an NRR response to AEOD including a plan for action where justified.
tie request that the appropriate technical branches review this report and provide their final comments including an update of progress on each of the NRR commitments for action we made during the peer review process.
Please submit your comments to Gary Holahan, Chief, Operating Reactors Assessment
- Branch, by May 21, 1984.
lpe BggQBB ~Y QB,rX'0iiG. miso~~~
Enclosures:
1.
Case Study Report 2.
Peer Review Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing cc w/enclosures:
B. Sheron H.
Denton D. Brinkman E.
Case S. Israel D. McDonald
- 0. Parr F.
Rosa DISTRIBUTION Central File ORAB Rdg GHolahan DPickett FMiraglia DEisenhut cc w/o enclosures:
W. Lanning, AEOD T. Marsh C.
Thomas A. DeAgazio ORA8:~g(
OR DPickeA:dm E t her 04/ Li/84 04 i) /84 C':
G olahan 04/t,t./84 AD A.DL FMiraglia 04// 7/84 Di ut 04/g/84
H