ML19250A341
| ML19250A341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1979 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lyle H NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910230086 | |
| Download: ML19250A341 (3) | |
Text
,-
mR Af%,
+
UNITED STATES Ej)g i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 (
g: E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%d g
0 Docket No: 50-367 Mr. H. P. Lyle, Vice President Electric Production & Engineering Northern Indiana Public Service Company 5265 Hohman Avenue Hammond, Indiana 46325
SUBJECT:
MARK II POOL DYNAMIC LOADS PROGRAM - BAILLY NUCLEAR 1
Dear Mr. Lyle:
The Mark II lead plant program is essentially complete, and we are now planning our review of the closure program for +he 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 which 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 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 Mark II program, and again in September 1978 when the Marx 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 dynamic loads would be completed in 1979 and 1980, respectively. Howver, the Mark 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, howver, make it possible for us to complete 0
082 7010236 b
L.
Mr. H. P. Lyle OCT 9 1973 our licensing activities for these plants in a timely manner only if the Mark II owners pursue a generic approach to resolution of pool dynamic load 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 pool dynamic load tasks, outside the generic Mark 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 rationale for plant unique program task schedule documentation (contents and schedule).
While we recognize that delays in the construction of the Bailly facility does not make this request an urgent matter on your docket, we do request that this information be provided to us in an expeditious manner so that we can plan our review efforts. We anticipate a meeting with the Mark II Owners Group to discuss these items at an early date following the submittal of the responses. The purpose of this meeting would be to determine the extent to which a generic or semi-generic approach has been pursued, and to obtain the information needed by us to establish priorities for the review of the various pl ants. 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 prograris established by the licensing schecule for each facility.
Sincerely,
. A. Varga, A +i:.g Assistant Director for Light Rat r Reactors Division of Project Management, cc: See next page 0
083
lorthern Indiana Public Service Company ccs':
Meredith Hemphill, Jr. Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Bethlehem Steel Corporation 701 East Third Street Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18016 William H. Eichhorn, Esq.
Eichhorn, Morrow & Eichhorn
~
5243 Hofman Avenue Hammond, Indiana 46320 Edward W. Osann, Jr., Esq.
Wolfe, Hubbard, Leydid, Voit & Osann, Ltd.
Suite. 4600 One IBM P1aza Chicago, IIIinois 60611 Robert J. Vollen, Esq.
109 North Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60602 Porter County, Izaak walton League of America, Inc.
Box 438 Chesterton, Illinois 46304 Michael I. Swygert, Esq.
25 East Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 Richard L. Robbins, Esq.
Lake Michigan Federation 53 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 Maurice Axelrad, Esq.
Lowenstein, Nevman, Reis & Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, O. C. 20036 Dean Hansell, Esq.
Russell Eggert, Esq.
Of fice of the Attorney General State of Illinois 188 W. Randolph Street "hicago, Illinois 60601 J. R. Whitehouse, Superintendent
.lational Park Service Route 2, Box 139A Chesterton, Indiana 46304 3
OOIt
3 DISTRIBUTION:
NRC POR bec:
NSIC Local PDR TIC Docket Files ACRS (16)
LTE RA' LWR-4 File S. Varga Me Williams B. Moore R.
Denise, DSS L. Rubenstein Project Manager Licensing Assistant (2)
Attorney, ELD I&E (3) 0 085 t
O