ML19271A888
| ML19271A888 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1980 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Kay J YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8008110068 | |
| Download: ML19271A888 (4) | |
Text
', F .
~
chd l& b E
py
- tnof)',5 srares t
[ l'. s,,, [g NUCLEARJEGDLATORY COMMISSION h/
- .,s " /}.
.as WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s",,
s, AUG 9 41950 Occket No. 50-29 Mr. James A. Kay Senior Engineer-Licensing Yankee Atomic Electric Cogany 25 Research Drive Westborough, Massachusetts 01531 Gentlemen:
RE: YANKEE R0WE Our letter to ycu dated January 15, 1979 requested that you initiate as part of the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) a program to demonstrate the seismic design adequacy of your facility.
In relation to this request, we are aware of your efforts to develop a site specific ground response spectrum for your site; however, active structural / mechanical evaluations have not specifically been i nitiated. You are requested to submit, by September 15, 1980, details of your plans for proceedd g with a seismic evaluation program and provide justification for why ycu conclude that continued operation is justified in the interim until the program is co@lete.
Your submittal should address the sccpe of review and evaluation criteria and pro-vide a schedule for co@letten. The analytical portion of ycur program shculd be co@leted no later than January 1,1982. Any modifications to the facility that may be necessary as a result of your evaluations should be installed by the following refueling outage, but no later than January 1,1983. Any proposed changes to the f acility as described in the safety analysis report shall be made in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 of the Comission Regulations.
As a minimum, your program should provide for an evaluaticn of:
1.
The integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, 2.
The integrity of fluid and electrical distribution systems related to safe shutdcwn and engineered safety features, 3.
The integrity and functionability of mechanical and electrical equipment and engineered safety feature systems (including containment).
Although we have delayed until the end of 1980 a final decision relative to seismic input to maximize the potential benefits to be Wived from use of site specific ground response spectra, we expect ycu to proceed with your seismic evaluation program. Based upon input that we have received from the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory / TERA Corporation Site Specific Spectra Project, the Systematic Evaluation Program licensaes, NRC consultants and other sources, we have concluded that the ground response spectra shcwn in the Attacnment 1 is in appropriate level at which to initiate your evaluations. Between new and the end of 1980 we plan to co@lete additional worx tnat will allcw us to finalize our decision.
It does not appear likely that the ground response spectra shcwn 8008110 b g
AUG 04 1963 Mr. James A. Kay in Attachment I will be modified to a large degree. Therefore, we strongly recomend that you use this ground response spectrum in your evaluations.
The bases for our decisien are documented in Attachment 2.
You are free to make an alternative proposal for use in the interim until the final NRC staff decision is mace. We :xst eghasize that taking such an approach involves increased risk en your part because certain evaluations may have to be redone at a later tire. Furthermore, limitations of NRC staff resources make review of alternative proposals impossible in the near term.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f) of the Comission's regulations you are requested to sucmit the information described above on the dates indicated above in order to enable the Comission to determine whether or not your license should be modified, suspended or revoked.
- incerely,
~
Q '
tennu,iirector j
Division of{icensing u.
.i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
i As stated cc:
See next page
s Mr. James A. Xay CC Mr. James E. Tribble, P resident Yankee Atomic Electric Company 25 Research Drive Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 Greenfield Con unity College 1 College Drive Greenfield, Massachusetts 01301 Chai rma n Board of Selectmen Town of Rcwe Rowe, Massachu etts 01367 Energy Facilities Siting Council 14th Floor One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Director, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radiation Programs (AW-459)
J. S. Environmental Protection Agency Crystal Mall #2 Arlington, Vi rginia 20460 U. S. Envi ronmental P rotection Agency Regfoq I Office ATTN: EIS CCORDINATOR JFX Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203
ATTACHMEllT 1 YANKEE ROWE 1000.0 h,s
~
4
.gy 100
?.0! /N N-c D
%4
.g@
\\
10.0 g
N/
N w
g' f.
. /c e
g 2
. $o d
e-
\\
e 1.C E
N N
/N!
.<c g
x,
/
4
\\
0.1 0.01 0.1 1.0 10.0 PERICO.SEC.
5'; darcing
f b v')T154
.p* **%q
[{Q, c,, i j NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSICN j%
UNITED STATES E
WASHINGTON. :3. C. 20555
. t w~ ~ w
?S.%
I o
./
/
JUN 2 312 MEPCRANDUM FCR:
D. Crutenfield, Acting Chjef Systematic Evalua:icn Program 3 ranch THRU:
James ?. Knignt, Assistant Director for Y
Ccmcenents and Structures Engineering, :E
?RCM:
Rccer: E. Jackscn, Chief Geosciences 3einen, E
SUBJECT:
INIT AL REVIE'i AND RECC:@EiDAT!CNS ?CR SITE SPECIFIC SPEC *RA AT SE? SITES
'ie have :een working for :he cas two years wi h :ne SE? Branch anc their c:nsultants in creer to provide preliminary rec:=endations regarcing site s:ecific spectra to be used in -he SE? for evalua:icn of the seismic design adequacy cf the selected plants.
The 3ranta rec mmendaticns are attacned, hcwever, it snculd be noted that they are sucject ;c :ne limita:icns Oescribed in -he sections entitled "Pur:csa and Sccc( and" Rec:=encations." These rec:=endaticns were precared by Cr. Lacn Reiter cased primarily cn doc'.ments submitted in ne Site 5:ecific 5:ectra Program. We ex:ect that cur evaluation Of items 1:ill for:nc ming in the Site Scecific Scectra Program may result in the falicwing:
1.
I-is likely -hat there aill be further enanges in the return ;ericcs associatec with tne rec:mendec s:ectra for :he various sites. These return perices will still be acle to ::e cescribed as "Of the ceder of ICCO cr 10,0C0 years", wnich is the :resen: cescri::icn of the s:ectra anc the level imolicitly ac:ep:ed :y MRC in recent licensing cecisiens.
E.
Tners will be no major change in the relative levels of seismic hacarc between sites.
3.
Tnere 4111 be li :le :r no chacge in the *:eterministic' ::maarisens for -he varicus sita usec to evaluate the acce::acility of the s:ectra rec =enced in the attacnec review.
4 D1ere is a :reliminary indica:icn that a recuction in s:ectra at inter-redia:e anc icw frecuencies may be called ?:r at c:ck sites (Oresden, 3inna,
.-iacca:n Meck ec 'iilistene}. ? cbabilistic :recictions of :eak vel: cities 1:
nese Sites may als; be affected.
= - - -
~'
W DUPLICATE DOCUMENT L
fi A[4 Entire document previously g
entered into system under:
ANO b
h No. of pages:
37
=,
b m
L-1%s M