ML20056G600

Discusses Review of Rev 2, Electrical Design Criteria, Electrical Circuit Physical Separation & Cable Tray Loading, for Plant

ML20056G600
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	08/17/1993
From:	Berkow H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Berlinger C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9309030313
Download: ML20056G600 (2)

Text

_= _ ._ _ _.

g" "%,h$

l,-

i E iN E UNITED STATES l if' j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

g- ,# W ASmNGT ON, D.C. 2055M j

..... t Docket No. 50-302 August 17, 1993  !

l MEMORANDUM FOR: Carl H. Berlinger, Chief i Electrical Engineering Branch l l Division of Engineering i

! Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j FROM: Herbert N. Berkow, Director  !

Project Directorate II-2 l Division of Reactor Projects - I/II l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  ;

i

SUBJECT:

REVIEW 0F REVISION 2 " ELECTRICAL DESIGN CRITERIA, ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT PHYSICAL SEPARATION AND CABLE TRAY LOADING" FOR CR-3 l As a result of violations of cable separation criteria identified during the '

maintenance team inspection at CR-3 in early 1991, FPC reconstituted CR-3's i licensing basis criteria, which were minimal, and developed supplemental criteria addressing areas not previously covered. Comments on these criteria were made by the NRC staff at meetings in December 1991, and in November 1992. ,

Based on those comments and other matters discussed in the meetings, the licensee again revised its criteria (Revision 2, dated 4-13-93) and submitted i l

the document on the docket for information. Modifications in the plant are >

proceeding based on these criteria.

The EDSFI completed in mid-1993 did not review cable separation extensively,  ;

but Region II has indicated that a separate inspection of cable separation I will be scheduled later this year.

I You, members of your staff, and the PM have discussed whether there is a need to review the latest criteria. Performance of an inspection against partially unreviewed criteria does not seem entirely appropriate. Since the licensing basis criteria are incomplete, and Revision 2 reportedly represents the licensing basis plus enhancements, our review would represent an opportunity to influence the criteria and provide a firmer basis for providing reasonable assurance of safety in this area.

On the other hand, it appears unlikely that any reasonable review would show that the criteria do not meet the original licensing basis and, therefore, must be changed.

gh g 1 0 9309030313 930017 ~~

PDR ADOCK 05000302 P PDR

August 17, 1993 On balance, we believe that the staff should review and comment on Revision 2 of the cable separation criteria. Please inform us of your decision on this matter, and if you agree with our position, provide a schedule for completion of your review. Please keep in mind that the licensee has informally requested that comments be provided by the end of August 1993, although at this point this does not seem feasible.

(Original Signed Ey)

Herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: J. Wiggins G. Lainas S. Varga P. Gill S. Saba H. Silver Distribution Docket File- -

NRC & Local PDRs PDII-2 RF H. Berkow E. Tana OGC ACRS (IO)

H. Sinkule, RII 0FC LA:PDII-2 PM:PDI3-2d D:PDhl-2 NAME ETana 81Y )di3f[/ [ Berk DATE 8 //7/93 G/h[93  %/n/93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY - i FILENAME: A: CABLE.CR3