ML20004B868
| ML20004B868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Johnson W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106010223 | |
| Download: ML20004B868 (1) | |
Text
en j
og
(
o.
UNITED STATES Eh ~~ -
s
[,T ; s,q ( h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 j
- 7. -lg Q
/.
S,
/
May 20,1981 W! l co a\\
i for Materials & Qualifications Engineering he
] * )g nv%
~
MEMORANDUM FOR: William V. Johnston, Assis tant Director I}r Division of Engineering
" u.s,=211981
- h 2.
MAY
- -a FR0ri:
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director m an
?/
for Licensing s
Division of Licensing M
t/
b.g
SUBJECT:
DRAFT SSER INPUT - SEQUOYAH 2 There is a need to clarify a certain portion of your recent SSER input in a memorandum to me dated May 13, 1981. We discussed the write-up at a meeting we held on May 19, 1981, where we made certain assumptions that needed to be verified.
On page 3 of the May 13, 1981 memo, it is indicated that..."(2)- it is likely that equipment important to maintain containment integrity and to maintain degraded core in a stable shutdown condition will be able to survive the effects of a hydrogen burn; and..." On the other hand in SSER No. 4 page 22-28, the first paragraph indicated that "... the staff concludes that there is a reasonable assurance that this equipment will survive repeated hydrogen burns and function properly to mitigate the consequences of a degraded core event and prevent breach of containment."
The concern between these two statements rests with whether they are basically equivalent or if different, then we need to discuss any difference.
It is my understanding that the vie.w of DE is that they are the same.
Consequently, we would process SSER No. 5 on this basis unless othersise notified.
i Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing i
Division of Licensing cc:
D. G. Eisenhut R, H. Vollmer E. Adensam C. Stable Z. Rosztoczy 8106010AN
i i
May 20,1981 L Reading RLTedesco EAdensam CStable OELD ct I@
/(ty'NLUjJ((Mq A
MEMORANCUM FOR: William V. Johnston, Assistant Director (ffIf for Materials & Qualifications Engineering Division of Engineering
[N
.,j i
FROM:
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director 211981 h for Licensing C. "*** g"uawa
\\
t Division of Licensing p
SUBJECT:
DRAFT SSER INPLIT - SEQUOYAH 2 t
h, There is a need to clarify a certain portion of your recent SSER input in a memorandum to me dated May 13, 1981. We discussed the write-up at a meeting we held on May 18, 1981, where we made certain assumptions that needed to be verified.
On page 3 of the May 13,1981 memo, it is indicated that..."(2) it is likely that equipment important to saintain containment integrity and to naintain degraded core in a stable shutdown condition will be able to survive the effects of a hydror;en burn; and..." On the other hand in SSER No. 4 page 22-28, the first paragraph indicated that "... the staff concludes that there is a reasonable assurance that this equipment will survive repeated hydrogen burns and function properly to mitigate the consequences of a degraded core event and prevent breach of contairinent."
l The concern between these two statements rests with whether they are basically equivalent or if different, then we need to discuss any difference.
It is e understanding that the view of DE is that they are the sarre.
L Consequently, we would process SSER No. 5 on this basis unless otharwise h
notified.
Oristad alped ny h I. Tadsees ho j
Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director i
for Licensing j
Division of Licensing j
CC:
D. G. Eisenhut j
R. H. Vollmer E. Adensam
'l C. Stahle Z. Rosztoczy J
, N $..
c Frict >
sumo. > R(Jedescg:Ib 04TE )
- * * ~
~ *"
ve r:au rs ewa s acu ma OFFICIAL RECORD COPY us e m-m-m
-