ML19322C517
| ML19322C517 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1978 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001170846 | |
| Download: ML19322C517 (2) | |
Text
an bdGGLS h)NGS j
o.
10 Oy 01s M 17
.f-
- 7 c'
,X
[
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING BOARD 1
li In The Matter of
)
Docket Nos:
LO f
Portland General
)
50-514 f
Electric Company
)
50-515
[.
L.:-.A.-__.sssre h a.
- _. g;,;;...,_,.., _, ;
NRC Staff's'Reponses;To Boara Questions During The Pebble Springs Pre-Hearing L
m l
Conference Held on April 12, 1978 f
Date: May 25, 1978 3
W$
h s
W Dlh
'd b'\\c>
f> o cv (
{\\'
2 c.~ ', \\
~
C' O q E
c 3.{r Qc, y
a Y'
A-A.
R.
^
7 R
W
~
y6 8001170 [ [
(
y.:.
3.;
3 yyggy
r
( -
offsite power is available, and assuming a single active failure.
The applicant was notified of these requirements and was requested to meet them, as a minimum, and provide a commitment to meet them prior to issuance of a construction permit.
.. Question No. 7
_= = u j
- _ _ _..., _.. ~
Has3heStaffIreviewedStheNovember 30,1977' applicant'siresponse-to a series of questions raised by the ACRS? 1Are there any unresolved =
? questions at:this time?. Can construction proceed pending a resolution?
I re fall' off them included Jin the. staff's list of unresolved items?:
A With respect to Question No. 9 of the ACRS, on the definition of a single failure, does the staff agree that the criterion stated by the applicant for single failure are adequate in designing redundant safety systems, and should the same criteria apply to all safety-grade systems regardless of the challenge risk?
Resoonse iThe: staff: reviewed the applicant's: responses tt. questions from the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards and we reported at the meeting l
of January 6,1978, that it'.found nothing that would change ourt t
jeValuation:as reported in the Safety Evaluation Report and the four j
supplements. The majority of the questions requested additional clarifications of specific items of interest.
Sace posed assumptions and scenarios which exceeded those criteria that are necessary for
,the protection of the health and safety of the public. !We, agreed
/with :the ' applicant's. response, where it has indicated, that the system was designed in accordance with the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
During these discussions, two items of concern were raised by the Comittee.
These were the electrical penetration i
requirements and containment purging at power. These are now resolved to our satisfaction and reported in Supplement No. 5 to the Safety Evaluation Report.
i Finally, the favorablelletter of January 12, 1978 from. tite fA'dvisory-j
'Comittee on Reactor?Safeguardslindicates that the Comittee was :
l l
lsatisfied with'the a'pplicant'stresponses, including the additional l
information that was provided by the staff and applicant at the pebble l
Springs ACRS review meeting.
l 1
l Question No. 8 Does Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report represent the final staff evaluation of the safe shutdown earthquake, and did Supplement No. 4 include the ACRS and all other evaluations?
me m (r n ymp Un i.r j
[ b _'
b, mot i