ML19343D272
| ML19343D272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/23/1981 |
| From: | Dirck W, Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343D273 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8105040103 | |
| Download: ML19343D272 (3) | |
Text
.
pn 99V
~
m ),,
l'NITED STATES
~ ;)
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,\\ ?
g 3
. j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 4pg;fff(t[ *
$[
l S
.d APR 2 31981 C%
U198;r
~
Id>%..y 4
MEMORAftDUM FOR:
Comissioner Abearne g#
i<88 I
FROM:
William Dircks, Executive Director for Operatio
SUBJECT:
SUA SPONTE REVIEW In response to your request of April 9,1981 concerning SUA SPONTE review on three cases identified in the ASLB memo of April 4,1981, attached com-ments are provided.
~jiftned}T. A. Rehm t
William Dircks, Executive Director
{,
for Operations
Enclosure:
As stated i
cc:
Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Bradford SECY OGC OPE
Contact:
Stem A. Varga, ORB #1, DL X27040 e
8105040 103 l
p
Beaver Valley 1 3 NRC 44 (1-22-76), 3 NRC 711 (5-28-76) and 4 NRC 55 (7-1-76)
Question:
a.
Board inquired into the probability that a gasoline barge might explode and destroy the cooling water intake.
Special pumps wen ordered to be kept available until an Condition:
a.
alternate cooling water structure could be built.
Comment:
During the course of its review, prior to the hearing, the staff required, and applicant agreed to provide, an alternate cooling water intake structure in the unlikely event the primary intake was destroyed by a gasoline barge accident. However, the staff was satisfied on the basis of the low probability of the event to allow operation during the time needed (about 6 months) to build the alternative structure without requiring other special provisions to augment the capabilities of the. primary intake structure. The applicant agreed with the staff, but offered to provide special pumps to be kept available until the alternat:e structure was built. The staff view was that the probability of demand for the proposed special pumps duriiig the tiine for coin-
~
pletion of the alternate intake structure was such (equivalent to approximately 10-7 per year risk over 40 years) that operation
. for that time without auxiliary intake was acceptable. The Board accepted the applicant's offer and ordered that special pumps Se required by technical specifications.
Question:
b.
Board inquired whether steam generator tubes could fail in an accident.
Condition:
b.
Special restrictions were ordered regarding primary leak rate and tube plugging.
Con:1ent:
The Licensing Board inquired into steam generator tube integrity and concluded that integrity can be assured by approving staff '
proposed technical specifications set forth in the record.
Davis-Besse 1 6 AEC 691 (9-13-73)
Question:
Board questioned accuracy of dose estimates.
Conditions: Board imposed:
a.
expanded preoperational monitoring; b.
review of operational tech spec before operation; l
c.
expanded operational monitoring.
l
_ 4 Comment:
Davis-Bess'e 1 did not have an operating license hearing. How-ever, there.was a hearing concerning compliance with 10, CFR 50 Appendix D (environmental review). The ASLB ruled on September 13,1973, that the Davis-Besse CP should be modified to ' require environmental monitoring programs as recommended by the AEC Regulatory Staff in their Final Environmental Statement.
Fitzpatrick Question:
Board questioned extent of ecological monitoring.
Condition:
Board required Staff and Applicant to agree on a monitoring program before license issued.
Comment:
The Board viewed the staff's ecological monitoring program des-cribed in its Environmental Technical Specifications as extensive and may not have a prototype. The Board was concerned that a monitoring program of such magnitude may not be practicable. The Board was concerned that the Applicant, the State of New York, and the Staff retain flexibility in the program to achieve meaningful
. results. Accordingly, the Board required the Applicant and the Staff to reach agreement on the logistics and dates of implementa-tion of the monitoring program set out in the Environnental Tech--
nical Specifications.after the~ hearing was closed. This action
~
was completed by the staff.
4 O
t'
.-