ML19338G285
| ML19338G285 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1980 |
| From: | Dise D NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19338G284 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0660, RTR-NUREG-660, TASK-2.K.3.30, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8010290010 | |
| Download: ML19338G285 (1) | |
Text
g, G
N u MOHAWK Y NIAGARA Wan ma 44CHAWIC POWER CCRPCRATICN/300 E.nlE aCUL!vAAo WEST. svoACUSE. %Y 13:02/*.LE.8wcNE i31!) 4?4 t!ti c
Octcber 1, 1980 Mr. Garrell G. Eisennut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatcry Ccmission Wasnington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Eisenhut:
Re: Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Occket No. 50-220 OPR-63 Item II.X.3.30 contained in your letter of Septemaer 5, 1980 requestec Niagara Mohawk to submit an cutline of the oregram by Octcber 1,1980 to justify / revise our small break LOCA analysis metnces to snew comoliance with Accendix X to 10 CFR 50. As indicated in cur letter of June 20, 1980, General Electric, whose analysis metheds are used for Nine Mile Point Unit 1, will contact the Nuclear Regulatcry Ccmissien staff cirectly to accress the acecuacy of their small break LOCA analysis methods.
If generic revisions to General Electric's small break LOCA mcdel are ceter-tinec necessary, the plant specific calculations for Nine Mile Point Unit I will ce reviewed and reanalysis per'crmed as required.
Very truly ycurs, NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CCRPORATION U..-
00nalc P. Dise Vice President Engineering
?E?;ia om o
q-80102900lO LW m
W W..
2
MORTHEAST IFrit.FTIES w.w o.e. a.: me -w -a-."
PO BOX M l
jg][M7 MAATFCAo. cCNNECT1 CUT Jet 01 g
g 'l'
'.. '.Z'.,7% ".?.."/O
~.v.
n.-
October 1, 1980 Docka t No s. 50-213 50-243 50.33e 310095 Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Cffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555
References:
(1)
D. G. Eisenhut letter to All Licensees of Operating Plants and Applicants for Operating Licenses and Holders of Construction Permits dited September 5,1980.
(2)
D. G. Eisenhut letter to All Lica mees of Operating Plants and Applicants for Operou.ng Licenses and Holders of Construction Permits (3)
W. G. Counsil letter to the Sacratary of the Comission dated September 29, 1980.
Gentlemen:
s Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2 Preliminarv Clarification of TMI Action Plan Recuirements In Reference (1), as supplemented by Reference (2), the NRC Staff provided a su::xmary listing of all approved tiI-2 related requirements for operating teactors. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) find that these documents greatly facilitate the task of tabulating the implementation status of the numerous Di! requirements, and comend the Staff for undertaking this effort.
It is also our perception that conducting Regional nestings to discuss this document, prior to issuance in a finsi form, is ::ntually beneficial in terms of exchanging views and providing feedback. 3ased upon our review of References (1) and (2) to date, as well as our participation in the Regional meetings, CYAPCO and
'.;NECO are hereby providing the folicving comments.
- he items discussed are indexed in the same format as References (1) and (2).
9 \\
\\
h souuo 3 23 p
LPf
i I
i I
-2~
(1)
I.A.2.1 - Immediate Ucarading of Operator and Senior Operator l
Training and Qualifications l
I.C.1
. Guidance for the Evaluatton and Develcoment of Procedures for Transients and Accidents II.3.4 - Training for Mitigatina Core Canage In Enclosure 1 to the March 28, 1980 NRC letter on Qualifications of Reactor Operators, Page 2, Ican A.2.b, it is stated that applicants shall have three months training on-snife as an extra person in the control room. It is suggested that the NRC should accept alternative means of fulfilling the intent of this requirement.
~
Page o, Item D.1.a. it is stated that Shif t Supervisors shall have an engineering degree or equivalent qualifications.
It is suggested that the licenses should have the flexibility to determine what constitutes equivalent qualifications.
De March 28, 1980 letter on Qualifications of Reactor Operators imposes additional training requirements for mitigating core damage. Require-ment 1I.3.4, Training for Mitigating Core Damage, seems to inpose the same requirements with a later due date, i.e., August 1,1980 vs.
April 1, 1981. The diff erence between the March 28 letter and Item II.S.4 is not clear. Further, Item I.C.1, Guidance for the Evaluation and Develop-ment of Procedures for Transients and Accidents, states that the NRC will not review for acceptability until July 1,1981. These analyses are a vital input into the training program.
It is nose desirable to have assurance that the analyses used as a basis for the training program will be endorsed by the NRC Staff prior to their utilization.
(2)
II.3.3 - Post-Accident Samplina Capabiliev Regarding Clarification Item 3.b, it is noted that passive flow restrictions to limit reactor coolant loss contribute,co increasing place-out, and is in conflict with another directive in this paragraph to make provisions to reduce plate-out.
Regarding Clarification Item 3.g more specific guidance could be specified for chloride range and sensitivity. It is not clear whether the require-ment exists to deter =ine if cooling water ingress has occurred rather than determining minor changes in chloride concentration during post-sceident core cooling.
Regarding Clarification Item 3.1, imposition of this requirement unequivocally is inappropriate as a plant-specific radiological assessment should determine the potential need for charcoal adsorbers and HE?A filters. It is also oceed that the " sampling facility" could refer to the sampling cabinet, sample room, or sample building.
In light of the guidance provided in Item 3.c, it is our understanding that compliance with the single failure criterion in the design of the sampling system is not sandatory. The CYAPCO and NNECO designs are proceeding on that basis.
(3) II.F.1 - Containment High Range Radiation Monitor Regarding Table II.y.1-3, the requirement to provide certification of calibration of each detector for at least one point per decade of range up to 1000 1/hr is excessive. The vendor for this equipment for CYAPCO and NNECO does not have a source of sufficient strength to perform this calibration for the highest decade.
In light of successful calibration by a radiation source of all other ranges, electronic calibration for the range of 100 R/hr to 1000 R/hr should be acceptable to the S taf f. The added " assurance" gained in fulfilling the current NRC requirement is not justified 5/ the associated cost.
(4)
II.F.1 - Containment Hvdrogen Monitor Based upon our participation at the Region I neecing in Virginia on Monday, September 22, it is our current understanding that the NRC Staff intends to further clarify its position on this issue. The following suggestions to the clarification stems of Reference (1) are offeted.
1.
The requirement to comply with Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, should be supplemented to state:
a) The single failure criterion is not applicable upstream of the second isolation valve.
b) Instruments such as flow gauges need not comply with ASME Section III, Class 2 requirements.
2.
It should be made clear that manual action is acceptable for system initiation to comply with the 30-minute criterton.
3.
The accuracy requirement should be revised to read: " Containment hydrogen concentrations shall be measurable over the range from 0 to 10 volume percent with a measurement accuracy within 1 5% of the sonitored range, i.e., t 0.5 volume percent hydrogen for a 10 volume percent range".
The requirement suggested in Reference (1) will be difficult if not impossible to fulfill with sace-of-the-art equipment.
The accuracy requirement specified above is feasibla and sufficient to identify hydrogen concentration changes of incarest.
4 The current wording of this clarification is subject to significant differences in interpretation, with no clearly identified purpose.
It is inferred that any possible location of a " hydrogen pocket",
independent of size, likelihood of occurrence, or variations in concentration from the bulk of the containment atmosphere need to be sampled. The appropriate design for this system is further complicated by the absence of a design basis event which wodd result in the generation of large volumes of hydrogen. 3ased upon our current understanding of effort associated with degraded core cooling, explicit guidance in this regard vill not be available for quite some time. Furthermore, it would be extremely expensive to cesign, a single failure proof system to sample from a half dozen or more points, and time consuming for an operator to collect all the data. It is also not clear what benefit these data would be, since in many scenarios very lictie could be done to modify the variations in hydrogen concentration which any exist.
In light of the above, it is suggested that judicious location of two monitors, foe instance, near the pressurizer relief tank and near the intake of the containment air recirculation fans for a ?WR, should be acceptable. The costs associated with more elaborata installa-tions are not justified.
(5)
II.P.1 - Containment Pressure Monitor Clarification Itans 5 and 6 impose new requirements. These are require-sents to continuously record the data in the control room and a require-ment to specify a time constant of less than one second for the monitoring channels.
It appears that imposition of new requirements should warrant an extension b1 yond January 1,1981.
(6)
II.A.l.2 - Uoerade Faerzenev Sunoort Facilities The clarification section of this requirement refers to NUREG-0696, which is still in draf t form. CTAPCO and NNECO believe that the requirements I
in this document are in need of substantive changes, as described in Reference (3) and in a letter on this subject submitted by the Atomic Industrial For.un.
It is evident that the level of detail requested in Reference (1) will not be available by January 1,1981. This position is justified in light of the current uncertainty associated with the ultimate acceptance criteria for the ISC, EOF, SPDS, and NDL. Depending upon the evolution of futura developments in this area, it say be possible to provide conceptual design information by January 1, 1981.
l (7)
I.C.6 - Guidance on Procedures for Verifving Correct ?erfor ance of Operating Activities The requirement to have a second " qualified" operator verify proper system aligament for the return-to-service of equipment important to safety is excessive and is not an improvement to overall plant saf ety.
Non-licensed or auxiliary operator personnel are cutrently utiliced to verify proper system aliganents. Independent verifications performed by different auxiliary operators on redundant systems are adequate to assure saf e plant operation.
If independent verification of system alignment is necessary, a licensed individual should not be required to perfors this task. The level of knowledge required for licensed operators is not compatible with performance of system line-ups. Furthermore, there is not a sufficient number of licensed individuals available to comply vich this requirement.
Authority to release systems and equipment for maintenance, testing, or return to servics should also be given to the Assistant Shift Supervisor.
With prime responsibility for all control beard manipulations, this individual is fully capable of aucharizing release of systems i=portant to saf ety.
The NRC-proposed requirement will further burden the Shife Supervisor vich unnecessary responsibilities and detract from his performance in more vital functions.
(8)
II.D.1 - Performance Testing of 3WR and PWR Relief and Safetv Valves Soch References (1) and (2) require completion of the valve test programs and submittal of plant-specific piping analyses by July 1,1981. Neither the PWR test program nor the 3WR test program can support this schedular requirement. To date, it is the purpose of both test programs to ecuplete valve testing by July 1, 1981, as originally sandated by NUREG-0578, Section 2.1.2.
Thus, it is CYAPCO's and NNECO's intent to actively participate in both valve test programs, to submit valve cast data only by July 1,1981, and to subnic plant-specific analyses as soon as possible following completion of the test program.
i l
. 4 We crust you will find these comments useful in finalizing the contents of Ref erence (1). If the NRC Staff elects not to address the above concerns in the issuancs of an update to Reference (1), we would appreciate a docketed response to facilitate 1:nplementation of these IMI requirements.
Very truly yours, C0!CIECTICUT YANKEE ATCMIC PCWER CCMPA.W NORTHEAST NUCLEAR INERGY CCMPA.W
?M W. G. C66ns11 Senior Vice President O
g-Sy:
e W. F. Fee i.xecutive Vice ? resident
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 2301 MARXET STREET P.O. SCX $699 PHILACELPHI A. PA.19101
,,,y,,
uset e (2t 94t.soos e.....
Octo5.2r 2, l '/ '
't r. 1serell G.
Cisenhut, Oirector livision of Licenstag
'.' f ' ac le.1 r 't e.;u la t o ry Consi ss ion 3.1shi,;:en, OC 20553 3 *;.J i O :
Co pliance with 7:: -
"'elt:ed 2cautre en:s
't e f e r e n c a s :
- 1) Let:er da:ed "ay 7,
- 1730, 1.
C.
- Iisashut,
- ' 0, to all 17 era:ing teactor Licensoos
- ) Letter dated July 31, I ? 'i o, 3.
O.
- Cisenhut,
- R C to all f.1:ensees of 1,e a:In:
Plants and Apolicants f or Opera tin ;
Licenses sad : folders of Construe: ion I' e r :s i t s.
- 3) Le: tar Jaced Septe=ber 5, I ? ' 1, J
3.
C.
Eisenhu: to all Licansees of Oper1 ting ?lan:s, stovidin; preli.:Laary elseifiestion of T'!I
.iction Plan 2equirenents.
Oes: * *. Iisenhu::
The '*uclea r ie.;u lato ry Co sis s ion by say'of the corresnondence referenced above has requested infornation fro:
- 5e Licensees retardia; i=plenentttian of T".I-2 rets:ad requits7ents.
Our ssponse to :'ese reques:s are s u b.41 : : e d belo i.
1.
7eeuire.eet: :!? C I/.tC IC Ini:iarion se :oin: ( : : 1.s 7.;.4.3.13s of reference 1)
The ini:iation lavels.of :Se
'I C : and ' ': ! O i;s::
s h o ul.! he separated so :h.1: the
'C C s y s : s.1 ini:14:da 2: a higher va:er level : h.t a the
?C: sysces.
T h i.i
- N a n.; e his :5e Soten:isi to reduce :no nu:bar of c h s il s a.; e s :o tha,i?O! systs 2nd cosli etsui: in loss 4
03Y 4D\\od bd aJJ o**
- oSN em
=
o 7.
1.
- isenhut 81e2 stress on the vessel dios cold wa:or injection.
Analyses should be :erformed :o ovslus:e :5ese chan;es.
TSe analys:s should be s u b.s i t : e d to the s:sif by Secober 1, i f 19, and chan?os shou 1J be innlesented by noril '., 1911 !! Jus:ified 's y :.e analysis.
'.essonse I: is sur conclusion tha: so::oint c5snies vill yield einimal redue:isa in the the rmal 'cy:le his:Jey.
TSis as::ce ess lis:ussed in a :eleshone conversation Se:veen T.
A.
2111 of Genersl Electric Cosnany, T.
Shannon rentesen:inq :Se M* ?. 7vners' Orouo, a n <t 'hyne 9odies of the "AC on June 13.tnd 17 Mr. Mod:ss indicaten that the elsa not :o 1:ste= cat the changes a ppea re d to be aparooriate if the evaluation of :he chan;e !asonstestes ne;11;ible redue: ion in theresi cycles.
In order to seemit a
- horou;h review of the owners Groun evaluation, we pronose a submi::al date of Oc:ober 24, 19d0 for nrovie.in.; :he bases for our conclusion on this issue.
1.
issuirement:
?.CIC Auto ?estart (I:e= II.s.3.13b of reference 1)
The ACIC systes ini:iation logic should
'J e zodified so that the ICIC system vill rests:: on low water level.
The reason for this proposal and the actions requested are identical to requirement I above.
Tassonse Our assessment of this proposal indica:es that it 9111 enhance
- he avails 5111ty of the sys:em while having no adverse sffect on syste: function, relishtlity or safety.
The modification includes relocating the hi-h level ::17 si.:nal froa.:he ?.C I C turbine : rip valve :o the RCIC stesa suoply valve.
This chan e elisinatos the manusi resa: feature from :he TCIC ::1, on hi;h rese:or level.
The nodification nrovides a s:eas sunply valve closure on a hi;h reactor level ::io.
The e.:i s : i n.; control l o.:i c sill recoen :he staas suoply valve when :he rese:or lavel decresses :s the low level : rip se:soin:.
This notifics:Lon will
's e concleted on
'.esch :otton Oni:s : and 3 by toril 1, 19'!1 ss required in raference 1.
3.
ia uire=ent:
Conson taference Level (I:ss !!.'1.3.27 of reference 1)
Oifferent celerenes poin:s of various rese:ce vassel vs:::
level ins :usen:s nay :suse o?ers:sr confusion.
TSarefore, all level ins: u=an:s should be raferenced :s :Se sa:e D *
- lD
- lD 030 Y h
_M MUJOUh
O.
Itsenhut
?a c 3 7oint.
locunentation of Ofe hodifics: ion shall 5e subsi::ad by October 1, 13 N.
soonse
'is v e casolated the ins:alistion of new scalas to sevarsi lavel
.ns::unents to stovide for s cocean esference,oin: af 5: 1 inches above :he bot:os of the vessel.
This soin: v s.s c :1 o s e n to limit
- he number of level ins :usents requirin; sesla chan es Sn as to uinini:e the confusion associated.it:5 :he reorici:stion af :Me c:n::al roos operstars :o a nov :sference sesla.
The modifica: ion chances the scales on :he fuel :9se level (narrov ran e) recorder and :he shutdown level (vi te e s a.; e ) indicscor to reflect a :ero 7o13: ths: is consisten: vi:h :4e other three isn es of level ins::usentation.
i.
7enuirement:
Ifen:ify 'Jacer Sources ?tior to ::anusi Ac:ivacion of A32 (I:en II.K.3.57 of reference 1) imergency procedures should include verification : hat a source of cooling vacer, such as cora spesy, LPCI, or condensate s7sta:s is svsilable netor to =anual se:uction of the autonatic depressuri:ation system (A35).
The Licenses should verify tha: the Iser;ency Procedures have been sopropriately revised.
2essonse T'
- s require:en: has been incorporated into the anergenc7 procedures for a loss of coolan: acciden:.
The reviston was conplatsd as ear: of :he chase i effort of the ;eneral Elect:1c Vit Guners* Orous orocedure i=provesent c ro,; rss required by NL*2I 3373, *T::I-2 Les s ons Learned Task Force 5:stus te, ort and Short Tars teco:nendations.*
3.
teoutrement:
Mininam S.5tf: S :s f fin.; (refseence 2) taference 2 provides in:eris cri:eria for alnicum shift s:sffin; an.1 reilue s ts the Licensees to adviso the *:R C.1:71a 30 isys of :he date.by which c5eir shif: staffin; vill be in coastisace with this cet:eria.
Its9anSe An enamins:Lon o f our curren: selffing pesc:ic:s nnj cs,abili:14s esvesis :hs: :he ?sach to:cos or;sni:s: ion is in caspli:nce vi:n the interi: criteria except for :he reqsirecan: :hs: a licensal senio rase:a caerator ($19) shall. 4: 211 :i:es, Se in :he con: 31 roco.
Two supervist:1 senior licensed otars: ors are assi;ned :a each shift.
- To r: ally 2: less: one St9 is s:stianac 41:31. :he ::n::al roon conplex s: 11; :t as; however, this iss 1
D**]D "]D030 M'
o c m o MU U.
lftL=
J,
- r.
7.
O.
71sanhut
?:.e a
,oc ?rovsausly been a ri;14 requerenant.
!!!actife *:ovaccer 1, I TIO, ins: ructions vill be issueJ. sad tha adainistrative stocedure ra;arding shif: s:sffia: revised to ensu re that a licensed senior resccor coerstor ( O'.9 ) is s: all :ines in cle con:rol rocs cos71ex fros which a rese:or is
's e i n ; o o e r s : e.!.
5.
7eautrenene:
2edicated lydro ;en ?cnaces ions (1:es !!.7.1.1 of reference 3)
Ovslutte the desi:n of the
,u r ;e 17ston for pos:-1ccilen:
- oc5us:151e ;ss control of the containien: at=ospharo.
Soecific dosisa cri:eria see identifiad.
The s ys:ce :!s s i ;n infoe:a: ton shall be subsit:ed by Oc:ober 1, 1939.
?.e s c o n s e This requiremen: estallels 1:ea 2.1.54 of 1:100 0571, shoe: Ter:
Lassons Learned.
Our reviev of the desi;n cetteria fresen:ad in II.I.A.1 of reference 3, concludes ths: the creviously prooosed codifiestions and infornacion subnitted to the 41C seec the requirements of this item.
The scoposed aodificacions vere iden:ified in corresoonde.nce dated January 2, L T.10,
S.
L.
Saltroff to 3.
2.
Oencon, 320.
The sodifica:lons involve additional conesiament isolation valves on the Contaissen:
1 Atsospheric Dilution (CAD) system.
The descristive infor:s:Lon requested by Oc:ober 1, 1900 was provided in s ?sach ottos Oograting License amenduent application, dated July 16, 1930.
?.e a u t r e = e n t :
Small-Sesak LOCA Machods (I:em II.K.30-of rsference 3) gequires :he methods used by :he 4333 vondor for s=all Sres't L1CA analysis to be in complisace vich Apoendin < to 10 C y '.
50.
A schedule for seatin: this require:ent was reques:sd by Oc:ober 1, 1930, and the sddi:Lonal infor s:Lon raque'ce:
Sy January 1, 1942.
- es7ense 5:1:0 0577, ice: 2.l.?,
Shor: Ter: Lessons Las:nad, t i r o c : e ;! :he 11:sasee :o saaly:e the ses11 brask loss-of-coolsac sceiden:s.
751s :.tsk was serforced by :he Genarsl Elec:ri: Cocyany uncer :ha I
firec:Lon of :he V 3 Owners Oroup, and subsi::ed :o :5e 730 for
- heir review in NOFA 24703, datid Au;us: !??).
We.5sve reviewed
- his ma::ar vi:n the Chairman.of the 3L't Owne rs O cou,,
sad concur vi:5 51s ?lsa to have Oenertl Electric Conpany, undo: the firse: ion of :he 19aars Grou?, :o nrovide :Ss addi:1snal informa: ion as sques:ed.
Addi:ionally, ve have reva inforced 5s: Mr.
$.J.
3:::h of :54 Ceneral tiectri: Con;tny discussed si t a !!:.
3.
0..
Eisenhuc of the 3'.C.
on Saote:bar la, l?$J, the D * *]D *]D f Y o e j\\\\ e MUS.1 2
Mr.
3.
O.
isenhu:
/ sic 5 doce for subci::ing a schedule f o r -lae le nen :s :i on and was informed by "r.
Eisenhut :ha: addi:ional :Las sill be ranted in a forthcosist revision to che Santanher 5, 1930 latter.
3.
Te4uireeent:
'li;h ia n te Effluent ohle Oss *:o n i: o r s (ll.F.L(i))
ieference 3 mesvides additional desi:n criteria for u,<radir.- :he noblo ias effluent :onitors by Sc:ober 1, 1991.
Tesosase This requirement parallels 1:es 2.1.ib of SU1 C 0373, Shoe: Ters Lessons Learned.
Three new soni:orin; systess vers installed earlier this year to see: the NU 50 9571 requirements.
A le:cer fros 2.
- i. leid, NRC - Division of Licensint, to E. G.
3 suer, s:stes that ?511sdelphia Electric Company has satisfied :he 'iC requirasents telsted to I:es 2.1. 3.5 of the TMI-2 Short Ters Lessons testsed requirements and I:es III 3.2.1 of the TMI Ac: ion
?lan (NUS.20 0660).
In lijht of the revised requirements for this systes specified in the Septesher 5, 1790 let:e: froa 3.
O.
Cisenhut, 1: is not clear at this cise whether asy further action regardin; :5ese sonitors'is required by ?hiladelshia Electric Cospany.
We propose that the sodifications previously implesented, ressis as as acceptable essponse to the requiremen:
for us;:ading the noble gas sonitors.
1.
1 eutrement:
Perforssace Tascing of aelief and Safety Vaives (ites II.O.1 of reference 3)
A plant specific subst::al for safety and relief valves is required by July 1931.
7essosse The Pesch lottos tyse safety and relief valves see included in the scope of :he s st: type ouslification casting :s be perforsed
's a d e : :he aussices of :he 3*ia Owners Orous.
'! : 2:e stoviding the necasssey supnor: through the Owners Grous to develop sad co771e:e :he :ssein; ses>; ras.
The best effort for the Cuners Grou, :s cos,le:s the qualifica:isa :es ing is Jul7 1, 19 :! 1.
Addi:isaal t?.se vill be secassary :o evaluste :he da:s and rsvife 2 olant specific subsic:al.
Ue pespose ths: :ne schedule presen:ad in corressondence dated Santauber 17, 1700, O.
3.
- s:::s, Chairman o f :he,2*;2 Ovne rs G rous, :o T.
3.
7ellser.
- TC,
ie :snsidered as sn seceptable schedule :o satisfy :his requiremen:.
The proposed schedule is as follows:
u
?
4 E'
s i
I
?.
I t J e *1'* 4 :
?t a i i
- oule:2 :as: facility:
aca:S.er 21, 1.'i] Cs,,1ece s.:s':e ;o in j
rests: Te:ruary'15, 1M1'*s 71e:e oyertS111:7 :ss:s:
July 1,
IS".1 Occpte:e ces: eesor:s: ~;e c e.:he r ' 31, 1.4.i ;
3 ?io u l d you have say quas:isna regarfi.:, :419 11::er, 11a.1se ds no: Sost:4:e to esn:ac: us.
t l
'lary truly yours, A, _ _l L -
(
1 l
i 4
a i
a e
e 9
J n
a e
.O6 l'
t-i t
4-
+
,y n.,,,
--.,,,-y.
,,--,,.c--,-
2 v--,
~
l>.
I VrmotstA Ex.zcritze axn Powra CourAxy
(
azemsown.vimozza anna
\\
t i
l Octcher 2, 1980 l
Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Serial No. 767 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation N0/DWL:jaj At:n:
Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Oceket Nos. 50-280, 50-231 Division of Licensing 50-338,30-339 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission License Nos. 3PR-32, DPR-37 Washington, D.C.
20555 N7F-4, NPy-7
Dear Mr. Denton:
RESPCNSI TO TMI ACTION PIXI REQUIREMENTS II.K.3.30/31 AND I.C.1 SURRY AND NORTH ANNA ?CWER STATICMS In response to the September 5,1980 letter from 3. G. Eisenhut, 2C, on Preliminary Clarification of DiI Action Plan Require =ents, the following information is provided.
I:em II.K.3.30 of the subject letter requires : hat a detailed curid ne of :he scope and schedule for revised small-break LOCA =athods be submitted to the NRC by Oc*cobar 1, 1980. 7epco's posi:1on on this requirement is that the current Westinghouse small-break LOCA model used :o analy:e the Surry and North Anna nuclear units.s already in confor nance with 10CFR Par: 50, Appendix K.
However, Westinghouse has indicated tha: : hey will address the schedule for completion of this requiremen: by January 1, 1982. Accordingly.
i Westinghouse vill provide a detailed outline of the scope and schedule of this effort by neans of a direct letter to the NRC on or about the October 1, 1980 deadline.
I:em II.K.3.31 requires a plant specific small-break LCCA re-analysis using the revised model of itam II.K.3.30.
If the resul:s of chai new Westinghouse model (and subsequent NRC review and approval) indicata that :he present small-break LCCA analyses for the Surry and Nor h Anna nuclear uni:s are not in con-formance vi:h 10C7R Part 50.46, new plant specific analysis utd7'-da! the new and approved Westinghouse model vill be submi :ed to the NRC in accordance vi:h NRC schedules.
I:em I. Col requires a re-analysis of transients, accidents, and inrdequate core cooling and preparation of guid=1'== for development of emergency procedures.
Ihis infor=ation is to be received by the NRC by January 1,1981. Currently, Vapco is pursuing this requirement :hrough the Westinghouse Owners Group.
The Owners Group has sulznitted emergency procedure guidelines for NRC review and co:cnent (Westinghouse to NRC, le::er 0G-37 dated July 13, 1980). To date, no feedback has been received by :he Owners Group on :his effort.
h q dd h- @W
vi.ou,a ::acrsic wo Pawns c,==wv to Mr. Barold R. Centon, Direc:or 2
During the regional nesting held September 22, 1930 :o discuss the revisions and clarifications of TMI Action Plan requirenants, the Westinghouse Owners Group expressed their villingness to neet vi:h :he NRC to further clarify the requirements of I.C.1.
Such a nesting is currently being pursued by :he Owners Group for the purpose of decernining what addi:1onal effort is required to satisf
-he requirements of I. Col.
It is 7epco's position that if significant addi:ional effort is required, the January 1, 1981 deadline is unrealistic. The reason for this post:1on is that Wescinghouse has informed 7epco (and other Owners Group nembers) that their work load through January 1,1981, could not support any significant revisions or additional analysis regarding the previously sub itted emergency procedure guidelines. A re-evaluation of our position vill be provided to you following Westinghouse Owner Group discussions with the NRC regarding the sta:us of the currently submit:ed emergency procedure guidelines.
7ery truly yours,
} fv'.lh.
- .}i y -~lvia
- 3. R. Sy Mansger - Nuclear Operations and Maintenance cc: Mr. Steven A. varga, Chief Operating Reactors 3 ranch No.1 Division of Licensing Mr. Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating 3aactors 3 ranch No. 3 Division of Licensing Mr. 3. Joe Youngblood, Chief Licensing 3 ranch No. 1 Division of Licensing j
.