ML19351D818

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to 800528 Submittal Re LOCA Loads at Facility. Efforts Should Be Continued to Determine Radiological Impact of Implementing Conceptual Physical Mods Required to Stresses from Postulated double-ended Guillotine Break
ML19351D818
Person / Time
Site: Yankee Rowe
Issue date: 11/07/1980
From: Crutchfield D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Kay J
YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
References
NUDOCS 8011200073
Download: ML19351D818 (3)


Text

._

NOV 7 1980 a

Docket No. 50-29 N

M 5<

E Mr. James A. Kay M,

Senior Engineer - Licensing Yankee Atomic Electric Company 3'

1 y

25 Research Drive A

g Westborough, Massachusetts u

m

Dear Mr. Kay:

This letter is in response to your submittal of May 28, 1980, concerning 4

LOCA loads at the Yankee Nuclear Power Station. After a review of previous

'm correspondence and subsequent submittals by the Westinghouse Owner's Group concerning this subject, we find that we do not agree with your conclusion that no further work is required by you relative to the installation of LOCA restraints.

In our letter to you dated January 25, 1978, we requested that you evaluate the effects of asymetric LOCA loads at Yankee-Rowe.

In February 1978, you informed us that the original design of Yankee-Rowe did not consider the mechanical and structural effects from a LOCA and you proposed that this subject be addressed within the scope of the Systematic Evaluation Program. After much discussion with members of your staff, in September 1978, we subsequently reaffirmed our position that this evaluation be completed independent of SEP. We understand that you, thereupon, joined the Westinghouse Owners' Group and contracted with Westinghouse Electric Corporation to perform the necessary evaluations.

In your November 19, 1979 letter, you stated that the results of these studies show that extensive reactor coolant system support modifications and additions would be required to accommodate these asymetric LOCA loads. You further stated in your conclusion that it would be unreason-able to attempt to incorporate the required modifications due to geometry limitations and radiation exposure considerations, but you still committed to perform a more detailed study of the types of modifications required and the associated costs. By letter dated February 13,1980, you determined that the preliminary results of this study would be available by July 1980, with final results and design details available by November 1980.

We, therefore, do not understand your statement in your May 28,1980 letter that you are termir.ating your efforts relative to installation of LOCA restraints. A review of the staff comments at the Mcy 14, 1980 meeting on high energy pipe breaks revealed nothing that would imply that the 8011200 073

/

.t.

s issue of asymetric LOCA loads has been resolved.

It was stated that the " leak before break" concept appeared to have merit in the resolution of the high energy pipe break issue.

It was nevertheless made clear that until this issue was finally resolved, the staff did not relieve you of your responsibility to continue to evaluate asymetric LOCA

' loads for Yankee Rowe.

In addition, WCAP-9748, " Westinghouse Owners Group Asymmetric LOCA Load Evaluation, Phase C" which was submitted in June 1980, specifically stated that "Ho specific evaluations were performed for Yankee Rowe for Phase C of the program. Separate burden studies will be submitted."

4 We understand that you plan to docket this report in the near future.

You should continue your efforts to determine the radiological impact associated with implementing the conceptual physical modifications required to meet allowable stresses resulting from a conservatively postulated double-ended guillotine break. tiembers of our respective staffs have recently discussed the level of detail required for our review.

We request Jhat you submit, within 30 days, either the r.esults of your study or a schedule for its completion. We will use the information you provide in conjunction with the submittals by the Owners Groups in the preparation of our safety evaluation on this subject.

Sincerely.

Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch f5 Division of Licensing cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket file NRC PDR Local PDR ORB #5 reading r

NRR reading RCaruso DEisenhut 0 ELD

/

RPurple OI&E(3)

TNovak RTedesco ainas ACRS (16)

JRoe JHeltemes, AECD DCrutchfield HSmith orr CE).0RB#5 L,,,,

Q-g g,

MEB, h 6

. RCa r,.

dn.

' Dkutchf.ield E.Che,1,U ah,,

SURNAME

,,7c g!,11/7../80 11/p/80 11/}../80 j

j.

N3C FORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 D U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFlCE: 1979 289 369

Mr. James A. Kay CC.

. Mr. James E. Tribble, President Yankee Atomic Electric Conpany 25 Research Drive Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 Greenfield Community College 1 College Drive Greenfield, Massachusetts 01301-Chairman Board of Selectmen Town of Rowe Rowe, Massachusetts 01367 Energy Facilities Siting Council 14th Floor One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Director, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radiation Prograns (AW-459)

U.

S.' Environmental Protection Agency Crystal Mall #2 Arlington, Virginia 20460 U. S. Environmental Protection-Agency Region 1 Office ATIN: EIS COORDINATOR JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Resident Inspector Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station c/o U.S. NRC-Post Office Box 28 Monroe Bridge, Massachusetts 01350 2

1 4

a

,