ML19260C564
| ML19260C564 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/04/1979 |
| From: | Denise R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| REF-GTECI-A-08, REF-GTECI-CO, TASK-A-08, TASK-A-8, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8001080002 | |
| Download: ML19260C564 (4) | |
Text
.
v g(
g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 r,
-l
%,...../
SEP 4 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR:
S. Varga, Acting Assistant Director
'or Light Water Reactors, DPM FROM:
R. Denise, Acting Assistant Director for Reactor Safety, DSS
SUBJECT:
MARK II POOL DYNAMIC LOADS CLOSURE PROGRAfi Enclosed is a draft of a letter that should be sent in final fonn to each of the applicants for BWR facilities that ose a Mark II containment.
Efforts to complete our review of the closure program for the Mark II pool dynamic loads have oeen complicated by the increasing trend on the part of some Mark II plant applicants to move from reliance on generic programs towards plant-unique programs for definition of their pool dynamic loads, and not advising us in a timely way about their changes.
The total Mark II pool dynamic loads program has thus become poorly defined.
The total generic and plant unique programs appear to be expanding in scope to a point where our staff and consultant resources will no longer be adequate.
Licensing delays for some of the Mark II facilities are inevitable unless some action is taken by the Mark II owners to maintain clear definition of the total closure pn)-
gram, and to utilize both generic and semi-generic programs. The purpose of the enclosed letter is to request the information necessary to make clear definition possible, including identification of the plant-unique pool dyna-mic loads programs, and to encourage a generic approach to the maximum extent practicable.
This letter should be sent as soon as possible to minimize any delays in the review of the generic program and the large number of (presently) poorly de-fined plant-unique programs.
dl h
x R. Denise, Acting Assistant Director for Reactor Safety Division of Systems Safety
Enclosure:
Draft letter S Hanauer cc: d Aycock W. Butler J. Kudrick C. Anderson T. Su 80 010 80 0 0 cA 1700 273
Docket No:
50-358 The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company ATTN: Mr. Earl A. Borgman Vice President - Engineering P. O. Box 960 Cincinnati, OH 45201
Subject:
Mark II Pool Dynamic Loads Program Gentlemen:
The Mark II Lead Plant Program is essentially complete, and we are now planning our review of the closure program for the Mark II pool dynamic loads. A growing tendency of applicants to depend on plant-unique programs, rather than generic programs, during the past year makes it necessary for us to request definition of the pool dynamic loads programs being relied on by each Mark II owner, es-pecially 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 Mark 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 Tenn 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. However, the Mark II owners i700 274
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.nformation has been provided to the NRC defining these new plant-unique pool dynamic programs.
Considering the design differences between Mark II plants, and the various licens-ing schedules for plants, we see a lfmited need for reliance on plant-unique pool dynamic load programs. The limitations on staff technical resources, however, make it possible for us to complete our licensing activities for these plants in a timely manner only if the Mark II owners pursue a generic approach to resolu-tion 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 appmaches, as in the case of the lead plant owners and the KTG "T" quencher.,Another possible subgrouping 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 include the following infonnation:
task description rationale for plant uniqua program task schedule (contentsandscfiedule) documentation 1700 275
This information should be provided to us by November 1,1979, so that we can plan our review efforts. We anticipate a meeting to discuss these items at an early date follo ing the submittal of the letters. The purpose of this meet-ing would be to determine the extent to which a generic or semi-generic approach has been pursued, and to obtain information needed by us to establish priorities for the review of the various plants. 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 resrurces, with review priorities for these programs established by the licensing schedule for each facility.
Sincerely, D. B. Vassallo, Acting Director Division of Project Management 1700 276