ML19274C818
| ML19274C818 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1978 |
| From: | Moon C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811170356 | |
| Download: ML19274C818 (5) | |
Text
}&'
(
S f[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
o UNITED STATES
[
f(
E WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 October 24, 1978 Docket No. 50-466 FACILITY: Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 APPLICANT: Houston Lighting & Power Company
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1978 FOR APPEAL OF STAFF POSITIONS BY APPLICANT TO STAFF MANAGEMENT (ASSISTANT DIRECTORS)
Representatives of Houston Lighting & Power Company (applicant) met with the Assistant Directors for Engineering and Light Water Reactors of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission staff in Bethesda, Maryland on August 21, 1978 to appeal three positions of the staff for Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station that were stated in the enclosure to its letter of July 21, 1978. An attendance list is enclosed. The results of the appeal for the three issues were as follows:
1.
Method for Combining Loads For ASME Class 1, 2, and 3 components and supports, the staff's position (Item 110.S(3)) stated in the enclosure to its letter of July 21, 1978 was "In the absence of acceptable technical justi-fication for the use of the SRSS* method, our position is that you should comit to combine dynamic loads by the method of absolute sumation until and if the staff concludes that adequate justification has been provided for the use of the SRSS method." For structures (Item 130.20 July 21, 1978) the staff's position was, "Unless justification is provided and found acceptable, the staff's position is that combination of loads should be done by the absolute sum method."
The applicant indicated that it had recently become aware of i.Se staff's creation of a task force to determine load combination methodology acceptable to the staff. The staff explained that near future generic resolutions would likely limit the use of the SRSS
- Square Root of the Sum of Squares
'lr 81117035L
. method to c f.1binations of loss-of-coolant accident loads with safe shutdown Lethquake loads for fluid system components only. The applicant then indicated that it might have to request exceptions to the generic resolution for other items that had already been ordered.
In a followup telephone call on August 24, 1978, the applicant indicated that exceptions should only be necessary for the containment and other steel plate structures within the containment boundary.
The staff indicated general concurrence in the applicant's proposal to submit a commitment to implement the generic resolution with an additional commitment to justify the acceptability of the final designs to the satisfaction of the NRC staff for those systems, structures, components, and supports for which the generic resolu-tion is not implemented in the final design.
However, the details of this conmitment Wefe not resolve'd.
2.
Soil Structure Interaction The staff's position as stated in the enclosure to its letter of July 21,1978 included a requast for the results of a comparison of the finite element method with the half-space method (Whitman Springs) (Item 130.6(c)). The applicant's appeal was that the comparison was not necessary because the finite element methodology was accepted by the staff in the Standard Review Plan, Staff management's response was that technical considerations since issuance of the Standard Revfew Plan now preclude reliance on this feature of the Standard Review Plan and that the Plan will be revised, In rejecting the appeal, staff management observed that without the Standard Review Plan endorsement, it is now the applicant's burden of proof to demonstrate an acceptable level of conservatism for its model.
In response to questioning by the applicant, the staff said it could not completely specify criteria in advance for judging the results of the comparison, The applicant stated that it would deliberate further prior to providing the requested com-parison results or prior to proposing an alternative procedure.
3.
Regulatory Guides 1.124 and 1.130 The applicant's appeal was that these guides should not be used as review guidance because the implementation dates were later
4
. than the Allens Creek review reactivation date of August 1,1977.
Upon being advised that otherwise the staff had insufficient information to complete its review, the applicant chose not to press an appeal.
NM Calvin W. Moon, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch 4 Division of Project Management
Enclosure:
Attendance List cc:
Listed on following page
LIST OF ATTENDEES Allens Creek August 21, 1978 Meeting with Houston Lighting & Power D. Vassallo, NRC J. Knight, NRC C. Moon, NRC S. Varga, NRC R. Bosnak, NRC F. Cherny, NRC R. Alexandru, EBASCO C. Hofmayer, NRC D. Nuta, EBASCO' S. Chan, NRC C. Tan, NRC S. Wu, EBASCO E. Borella, EBASCO R. P.i ffereti, GE J. Sumpter, HL&P L. Richards, HL&P
nojston Lighting a Power Company ccs:
Mr. P. A. Horn Mr. G. W. Oprea, Jr.
Project Manager, ACNGS Gromp Vice President flouston Lighting & Power Company Houston Lighting & Power Company P. O. Box 1700 P. O. Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 Houston, Texas 77001 R. Gordon Gooch, Esq.
Baker & Botts 1/01 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 J. Gregory Copeland, Esq.
Baker & Botts une Shell Plaza llouston, Texas 77002 Jack R. Newman, Esq.
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis & Axelrad 102b Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 d
Mr. Ray Matzelle Project Manager, ACNGS lbasco Services, Inc.
19 Rector Street New York, New York 10005 Hr. Ray Lebre Project Manager, ACNGS General Electric 175 Kurtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Mr. Carlos Byars The flouston Chronicle 801 lexas Avenue Houston, Texas 77002 froy Webb, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division P. O. Box 12548 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711