ML19331D026

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Util Risk Analysis on Loss of Feedwater Event & Related Correspondence.Since Applicant Commitment Was Met, Const Should Be Permitted to Continue.Any Addl Analysis Should Be Requested as Soon as Possible.W/O Encl
ML19331D026
Person / Time
Site: Washington Public Power Supply System
Issue date: 08/06/1980
From: Tedesco R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Ernst M
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8008270134
Download: ML19331D026 (1)


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:,- m Qw y= [am D UNITED STATES D [ 55 n NUCLEAR REGULATORY CoMMisslON h W ASHING TON, D. C. 20555 1 o,, f f EE ' %,***.*.o AUG G 1980 E5 g [== F== MEMORANDUM FOR: Malcolm L. Ernst Assistant Director 1 for Technology [:.: :::j Division of Safety Technology i=Ed = =q FROM: Robert L. Yadesco, Assistant Director EM for Licensing !M Division of Licensing }.;.g:l

SUBJECT:

RISK ANALYSIS ON THE LOSS OF MAIN FEEDWATER EVENT J.$ FOR NASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM T.fd NUCLEAR PROJECT NOS.1 & 4 (WNP-1 & WNP-4) l~~ p= [.[i; The Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), at our request (see ), agreed to perfonn a risk assessment study. In the meeting {:ll~ held with WPPSS on January 22,1980 (see Enclosure 2), the applicant pss. presented its proposed program concentrating mainly on the loss of main [==j feedwater event. We encouraged WPPSS to proceed on their proposed program,

==q recognizing that additional considerations may be required as an outgrowth " Th ) of this program. is the submittal of the applicant's study. 7 -j In our letter dated January 22,1980 (included in Enclosure 1), to the [i! Commissioners relating whether it is necessary to halt construction for l==5 B&W plants, our rationale for WNP-1 to continue construction was that FE, WFPSS had initiated a risk assessment study, and the applicant's commitment EE to submit the results prior to the closure of major component access to the E5 containment. In addition, we concluded that construction of WNP-1 IS ~ should be permitted to continue because we could not identify any major hM!5 changes. Note from the applicant's submittal, this latter conclusion is i:f" substantiated by this analysis and that the applicant has already initiated W; . 2 minor changes as a result of this study. With respect to the closure of E.2:5: M~ .tE:E the major component access to containment, the applicant is projecting this milestone arcund October 1980. The applicant has met its comitment by submitting this report.

E g==

Therefore, if we will require additional considerations or analysis, we [.= should make every effort to request this additional analysis as early as i;;;- possible consistent with the applicant's construction schedule. [ h 0 h.< V Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director d!55 i for Licensing =1 Division of Licensing iEEEH Enclosures : 5"' As stated 95 b 4._.7 es - E= 800827013'{ A 2 = =< = ~:- = =}}