ML20050B918
| ML20050B918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1982 |
| From: | Black R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Ferguson L, Schink D, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-MP, NUDOCS 8204070555 | |
| Download: ML20050B918 (3) | |
Text
g_
T April 1, 1982 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Dr. David R. Schink Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Department of Oceanography U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Texas A & M University Washington, D.C.
20555 College Station, Texas 77840 Dr. George A. Ferguson Administrative Judge N
g School of Engineering Howard University 3
.jp
'g 2300 - 5th Street, N.W.
9[9p k( k
~
Washington, D.C.
20059 o
q@g a-HS e
In the Matter of Offshore Power Systems D
+
6 (Floating Nuclear Power Plants)
Docket No. STN 50-437 MP g, %i J
Dear Administrative Judges:
This is in reply to your February 2,1982, request of the Staff to advise the Board on the necessity to alter or supplement the contents of Safety Evaluation Report Supplement No. 4 pertaining to Offshore Power Systems application for license to manufacture floating nuclear plants in light of recent amendments to 10 C.F.R. 9 50.34(f). The Staff has reviewed the application against the requirements of the Commission's final rule set forth in 10 C.F.R. 5 50.34(f) concerning Licensing Requirements for Pending Construction Permit and Manufacturing License Applications (47 Fed.. Reg. 2286, January 15,1982) and finds no cause to alter or supplement the contents of its Safety Evaluation Report Supplement No. 4.
The Staff, however, would call your attention to a requirement in the Safety Evaluation Report, Supplement No. 4 (NUREG-0054, pg. II-9) and in the new rule which requires a comparison study of alternative hydrogen control systems, including cost-benefit considerations.
See also Licensing Requirements for Pending Applications for Construction Permits and Manufacturing License, NUREG-0718, Rev. 2, pg. B-6 (January 1982)(copy enclosed). The Applicant asserts that it has committed to this requirement in its Plant Design Report (App. C, pg. 6). However, the Staff has informed the Applicant by letter
' dated March 19, 1982, that it was unclear that the commitment in fact reflected all the requirements set forth in 10 C.F.R. S 50.34(f)(1)(xii) of the new rule and would request the Licensing Board to condition the Manufacturing License to ensure that all requirements are fulfilled.
350 7 D
G204070555 820401 PDR ADOCK 05000437
-O PDR
p '~
. i Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Staff recommends that the Board impose the following additic;,al condition on the Manufacturing License which would require an evaluation of hydrogen control systems consistent with the new rule:
"The licensee shall perform within two years after issuance of this license an evaluation of alternative hydrogen control systems that provide, with reasonable assurance, that:
1(a) Uniformly distributed hydrogen concentrations in the containment do not exceed 10% during and following an accident that releases an equivalent amount of hydrogen as would be generated from a 100% fuel-clad metal-water reaction; or that the post-accident atmosphere will not support hydrogen combustion.
(b) Combustible concentrations of hydrogen will not collect in areas where unintended combustion or detonation could cause loss of containment integrity or loss of appropriate mitigating features.
(c) Equipment necessary for achieving and maintaining safe shutdown of the plant and maintaining containment integrity will perform its safety function during and after being 1
exposed to the environmental conditions attendant with the release of hydrogen generated by the equivalent of a 100% fuel-clad metal-water reaction including the environmental conditions created by activation of the hydrogen 4
control system.
(d)' Inadvertent actuation of a post-accident inerting system can be safely accommodated during plant operation.
l The evaluation shall as a minimum include consideration of a hydrogen ignition system and a post-accident inerting system. The evaluation shall include:
)
i (a) A comparison of costs and benefits of the alternative systems considered.
l (b) For the selected system, analyses and test data to verify compliance with the requirements of 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), and 1(d) of this condition.
i f
~_
(*
. (c) For the selected system, preliminary design descriptions of equipment, function, and layout.
The NRC Staff believes that the above condition will provide the necessary clarification and, together with the previously submitted information contained in the Applicant's Plant Desigr, Report pertaining to the additional TMI-related requirements, will satisfy the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
S 50.34(f).
Sincerely, Richard L. Black Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc: without enclosure Vincent W. Campbell, Esq.
Dr. David L. Hetrick David S. Fleischaker, Esq.
Mary M. Cheh, Esq.
Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.
Thomas M. Daugherty, Esq.
Mr. John H. Williamson Distribution:
City of Brigantine RBlack/RGoddard Harold P. Green, Esq.
EReis/RLessy Carl Valore, Esq.
EAdensam/MMallory Dr. Willard W. Rosenberg GCunningham/JMurray Dr. Alden McLellan EChristenbury/JScinto Mr. Mitchell Attalla 0 ELD FF (2)
Keith A. Onsdorff, Esq.
Chron (2)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Docket Files /PDR/LPDR Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Docketing and Service Section DS07
- DL/NRR'kf(_:AD/DL/NRR:____________:_g -
_____:_____h_U 0FC
- 0 ELD
- 0 ELD
- 0 ELD
- 0 ELD f
_____:___ _ _ _ _ _ _ : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a.
i NAME :RB1 b
- EReis/
allody (m o
- EChristenbury :
_______1.___:____________:____________
_________:____I_82 lDATE:03/f.//82
- 03/M,/82
- 03/h /89
- 03/ /82
/ /82
- 03/6 /
~
_