ML20010G732

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Concerns Re Auxiliary Feedwater Sys.Identified Deficiencies Detailed in .When Deficiencies Are Corrected,Sys Will Be Seismic Category I.Instrument Air Sys Not Seismically Qualified
ML20010G732
Person / Time
Site: Fort Calhoun 
Issue date: 09/14/1981
From: William Jones
OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To: Clark R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8109220462
Download: ML20010G732 (1)


Text

_

t O-Omaha Public Power District 1623 HAMNEY s OMAHA. NESRASMA 68102 m TE L EP: f d N E 536-4000 AREA CODE 432 September 14, 1981 I

Mr. Robert A. Clark, Chief U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regult. tion Division of Licensing Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 Washington, D.C.

20555

Reference:

Docket No. 50-285

Dear Mr. Clark:

In a recent telephone conference between Messrs. C. Tramell and K.

Herring of the Commissu n and Messrs. T. Patterson and M. Eidem of Omaha Public Power District, several concerns were voiced concerning the seismic qualification of the Fort Calhoun Station auxiliary feedwater (AFW) system. These concerns were regarding the District's response to the Commission's letter dated February 10, 1981. The voiced encern was that the District's response did not expressly reference the design criteria for the Fort Calhoun Station AFW system, as defined in the Comission's letter. The AFW system's original design criteria was seismic category I, as defined in the Fort Calhoun Station Final Safety Analysis Report for all safety systems. As the result of the AFW system evaluation, saveral deficiencies were identified and detailed in our letter dated July 14, 1981.

Once the identified deficiencies are corrected, the AFW system, as bounded by the Commission's letter, will be seismic category I, as defined in the FSAR.

During the cor.ference call, Mr. Herring also expressed a concern reguding the seismic qualification of the instrument air system. of the District's July 14, 1981 letter indicated that the instrument air system was not seismically qualified and this it. formation was provided only because instrument air was called out in the Commission's letter. However, failure of instrument air will not preclude AFW oper-ation. Therefore, it need not be seismically qualified.

Since ly, W

l d

jg00/

W. C.

nes 5

Divisi Manager g

Produc i re0peratio'g's n

/

//o N

g *0~

9 WCJ/KJM/TLP
jmm f

cc: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae

  1. 1 9

C, W

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

i4 Washington, D.C.

20036 g

t$

/ /

8109220462 8109f4 Y

q 4/

D d