ML18086B329
| ML18086B329 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/19/1982 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18086B330 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203040091 | |
| Download: ML18086B329 (2) | |
Text
DISTRIBUTION A
Docket Files (5~72/311)
NRC PDR Local PDR EDO*Rdg ORB l File
- D. Eisen hut R. Purple J. Heltemes, AEOD OELD C. ;)arrish W. Ross
~~. Dircks K. Cornell T. Rehm V. Stello D. Haynes, Reg. I
. R. DeYoung A. Cunningham MEMORANDUM FOR:
Commissioner Roberts M. Bridgers (ED0-11499)
Program Support Staff, NRR M. Jambor FROM:
SUBJECT:
William J. Dircks M. Stine Executive Director for Operations SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 - SPILL OF SPENT FUEL POOL WATER In response to your request dated February 9, 1982, the following information is provided:
- l.
Question - Was the temporary connection between the Unit l and Unit 2 spent fuel pool cooling systems approved by the licensee's onsite and offsite review committees?
Response - As required by the Salem Technical Specifications the onsite review committee had approved the design change proposal and had considered that it did not constitute an unreviewed safety issue. Under these circum-stances the Technical Specifications require the offsite review committee to review the safety evaluation to verify th~t the onsite review committee's action met the definitions and requirements of Section 50.59, 10 CFR.
This review need not be made before the_ design change is implemented.
- 2.
Question - Did the NRC Resident Inspector have the opportunity to review the procedure prior to its use?
Response - No.
The inspector was aware of the proposed temporary design change; however, this item was not selected for review during this period.
- 3.
Question - In the staff 1s review of spent fuel pool modifications has an event such as that occurring at Salem 1 and 2 been considered?
Response - Yes.
The staff reviewed the potential for loss of water through drainage from this circulation line. It was verified that drainage would be terminated by anti-siphon devices \\*Jhen the water level dropped four feet below normal*.
This system assures that the spent fuel~will always be covered by at least 18 feet of water.
Drainage pathways are reviewed as part of the Standard Review Plan {§9.3.3).
- 4.
Question - What steps will be taken to ensure that a similar event does not occur at other operating facilities?
OFFICE. *****:***********:******I*********_******~*:***_** I***:*:**~:***.:_*:********........................
SURNAME.
- 8203040091 820219 DATE.',
~DR ADOCK 05000~b~
NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGPO: 1981-335-960
Conm1i ss ioner Roberts Response - The staff considers this event to be an example of faulty quality control.
IE is considering issuance of an Infonnation Notice or identifying this incident in a future issue of AEOD's "Power Reactor Events."
cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gil insky Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne SECY OPE OGC OFFICE r; ORB...1. M....
suRNAME* WRo.s.s.l.r..........
DATE. ?I.ltd~.?...........
(Signed) William J. fJl!*c~t§ William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations NRG FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY USGP0:1981-335-960