ML19242B277
| ML19242B277 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1979 |
| From: | Ross D NRC - TMI-2 BULLETINS & ORDERS TASK FORCE |
| To: | Mattson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908070809 | |
| Download: ML19242B277 (2) | |
Text
f f'
/
l t
- E[ddc o
'c, UNITED STATES
~ )
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- /
Al.
2 FIS MEMORANDUM FOR: Roger J. Mattson, Director, Division of Systems Safety FROM:
D. F. Ross, Jr., Director, Bulfetins & Orders Task Force
SUBJECT:
RELATIVE RELIABILITY EVALUATION OF B&W PLANT AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEMS
Reference:
Your mmo, same subject, of 6/28/79 There are some essential differences between the B&W situation on the
~~
one hand, and the W-CE situation on the other hand:
1.
The Comission Order has already stipulated those short-term measures needed to resume or continue operation, for B&W.
By contrast, the reliaoility studies for W-CE will be used.
among other things, as the basis for continued operation of those plants.
2.
The Comission long-tem order provisions cover design modifications to upgrade timeliness and reliability of the AFW. As before, W-CE do not have (and probably will not have) long-tem safety orders.
The W-CE reports actually are a composite of short-tem and long-tem requirements.
3.
We plan to meet with the B&W utilities as an Owner's Group to discuss the generic aspects of the long-tem order. FMEA studies of the ICS are included, as well as any other generic aspects of AFW. This meeting is projected for the latter half of July.
4.
I note that the Comission believes that the long-tem modifications are litigable at the Rancho Seco hearing.
(See page 2 of the Order, 6/21/79, enclosed.)
In light of the fact that the short-tem basis for operation of B&W plants has already been established by Comission Order, and in consideration of the fact that long-tem modifications are embraced by the Order, I believe a different approach is suitable for B&W.
I believe it is appropriate to require such reliability studies by the utilities, perhaps through the Owner's Group, so that we may return to the " regular" mode of operation where the regulated proposes, and the reg lator disposes.
I will place this subject on the Owner's Group agenda (it was already there in the sense of the order, but this is more speci fic).
Perhaps plant differences will be overwhelming, but surely the Owner's group can develop methodology.
The B&O would review results with arid of PAS.
PAS might have to frame questions; ~
we shall see.
m, 777 7908070$ g
2 JUL 21979 I believe, in context of your last sentence, I have not adopted your recormlendation, but have indicated an alternate plan.
fM D. F.
oss, Jr., Director Bulletins & Orders Task Force
Enclosure:
Commission Order cc:
R. Minogue E. Case H. Denton D. Vassallo F. Schroeder V. Stello D. Eisenhut J. Davis S. Levine K. Cornell R. Ireland PDR y C. Long
,n
' lt i _,
s
UNITED 'TATES OP M ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.' UTIS S ION
- l.5 Jr,
~OTU4 T S S I ONE RS :
p' g
uwas Joseph M.
Hendrie, Chairman 2
Victor Gilinsky iF JUN21 1979 $>~'-5 Richard T.
Nennedy 5
% s,..
Peter A. Bradford Q "QMj a*
g John F. Ahearne cftG*
/MM
)
In the Matter of
)
)
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
)
Docket No. 50-312
)
Rancho Seco Muclear Generating Sta tion
)
)
)
ORDER
~ a w*..
By a confirmatory Order dated May 7, 1979 the Commission directed that the Ranchc Seco facility, then in a shutdown condition, should remain shut down until certain actions speci-fled in the Order were satis f actorily completed, as confirmed by the Director, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The Order also directed the licensee to accomplish as promptly as practica-ble the long-term modifications set forth in Section II of the Order.
The Or' der s tated further s Within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, the licensee or any person whose interest may be affected by this Order may request a hearing with respect to this order.
Any such request shall not stay the inur.ediato ef fectiveness of this Order.
Requests for a bearing have been received from Friends of the Earth and from rnembers of the Board of Directors of the Sar -amento Municipal Utility District.
~
The Commission hereby directs that the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel shall, pursuant to
'y 279
'7 O 7 / ffo/ 76
L 10 CFR 2.105(c), select a board to determinc whether the requesters
- et the requisite ps sonal interest test and to conduct an hear-f y O h.
f i, h* )I b
b t
ing which may be required.
J Q QJ u u
? b b
b the he)ar ng shall include:
The subjectis to be considered at 1.
Whether the act'.ons requirad by subparagraphs (a) through (c) of Sect; ion IV of the Order are neccesary and suffi-cient, to provide reasonable ascurance that'the facility will i
respond safely to feedwater transients, pending completion of the long-term modifications set forth in Section II.
A contention chal' eng3 ng the correctness of the NRC staf f's conclusion that the actions deccribed in subparagraphs (a) through (e) have been com-pleted satisfactorily will be censidered to be within the scope of the hearing.
However, the filing of such a contention shall not
,f itself s tay operation of the plant, t
2.
Whether the licensec should be required to accomplish, a s prorrptly as practicable, the long-term modifications' set forth in Section II of the order.
Whether those long-term nodifications are sufficient to 3.
that the facility will provide continued caso,able assurance z.spond.af ely to f eedwater transients.
Resumcd operati.on of the Rancho Seco facility on terms con-sistent with the Order of May 7, 1975, is not stayed by the pen-dency of these proceedings.
Contrary to the contention of the Friends of the Earth in their filing of June 8, 1979, the tr in-scripts of the Commission proceedings of April 25 and 27 reflect no Commission intent that hearings necessarily precede restart af the facility.
Nor is such a requirement compelled by law or us.
Mere speculation that by the factual circumstances before the need for further the hearing might develop facts indica ting
/4[
230
s..
ad enforcement action does not suffice to warrant a prohibition on rc-1.a r t o f the facility.
In the event that a need for further enforec-ment action becomes apparent, either in the cocirse of the hearing or at any other time, appropriate action can be taken at that time.
NRC staff has now determined that the actioms set forth in sub-paragraphs (a) through (e) have been completed satisfactorily, and it shall provide the Commission with an informational briefing as to the basis for its conclusions prior to pennitting restart of the Jacility.
That briefing will be open to the pciblic.
In recziving this briefing, the Commission will in no manner prejudge the merits of the adjudicatory hearing authorized by this order.
Any adjudi-catory determination by the Corraission -that may arise from.that hear,?/
ing will te based solely on the record developed in that preceeding.
It is so ORDERED.
For *he Commissiorn Dog SAMUEL J. CHIL;K N
[ Secretary ofj the C2cmmission p
Dated at Washington, D.C.,
h 1
this 21st day of June, 1979.
hu~l
^
,a
___*/ The decision of the Licensing Board will be: made on the basis of
_the record developed before it.
Tccordingly, pursuant to our rules, statements made by any person in the course of the staff's informa-tional briefing for the Commission inay not be "'pl e ad ed, cited, or relied upon" in the adjudicatory proceedings before the Licensing Board, or in subsequent appellate proceedings before the Appeal Board.
10 CFR 9.10 3.
If and when Commission review of that adjudi-cation takes place, any party wishing to plead,. cite, or rely on the trane.cript of the informational briefing will be at liberty to do so.
To that extent, owing to the unusual f actual circums tances present aere, we waive the prohibition contained in 10 CFR 9.10 3, in acco -
dance with the provision of that rule authorizdng such waiver by the Com:1ission.
.