ML20058J942

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Prioritization of Potential Generic Issue Re once-through-steam-generator Design for B&W Plants. Response to Items Requested in Ofc Ltr 40 & Relevant Memos Issued Encl
ML20058J942
Person / Time
Issue date: 09/04/1984
From: Sheron B
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Minners W
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17160A485 List:
References
RTR-NUREG-0933 NUDOCS 8409170085
Download: ML20058J942 (4)


Text

-~

.2

.M o,.

UNITED STATES

.8 g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

%-f E

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 iY Sp 4 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Warren Minners, Chief, Safety Program Evaluation Branch, Division of Safety Technology FROM:

Brian W. Sheron, Chief, Reactor Systems Branch Division of Systems Integration

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR PRIORITIZATION OF POTENTIAL GENERIC ISSUES In accordance with Office Letter No. 40, I request SPEB prioritize a potential generic issue dealing with the Once-Through-Steam-Generator (OTSG) design for B&W plants.

During a routine review of an 0.R. action involving a request by Crystal

.i River to raise the downcomer water level, we pursued, with DE (MEB) the effects of operation with the aspirator ports covered.

As a result'of questions, Crystal River revised its proposal to ensure that operation was only proposed with the aspirator ports uncovered.

While we approved-

'f the Crystal River change, DL questioned the safety significance of operation with the aspirator ports covered.

We responded in a July.3, 1984 memorandum.

DL subsequently requested us to arrange to. have the issue prioritized.

In enclosure (1), a response to each of the items requested in Office Letter No. 40 is provided.

In enclosure (2), all relevant memoranda that.

were issued on the subject are provided.

If you have any further questions, please call me.

lLU L Y Brian W. Sheron, Chisf 4

Reactor Systems Branch Division of Systems Integration

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

R. Bernero i

R. W. Houston

~T. P. Speis F. Rowsome i

G. Lainas G. Rivenbark J. P. Knight W. Jensen G. N. Lauben 1

[pegi l

l'PR y-N i

f_[~11f f g $ & & QQ f

'w-

~

s",

2 y

4

.t 1,

i

]

ENCLOSURE l' t

1.

. Suggested Title of Proposed Generic Issue or new. requirement.

OTSG Level j

i 2.

What is.the known, suspected, or potential. deficiency in the 1

technical basis of existing staff guides'or requirements?

l i

c NONE 3.

What present specific safety requirement (e.g., SRP, Regulatory l

Guide, Rule) appear to be inadequate or in doubt?

q NONE j

4.

If a new requirement is proposed, what.is the proposed requirement?:

~

Provide, to the extent possible, a value-impact assessment.

j v

i No new requirement is proposed at this time.

The~ technical-1 evaluation will determine if any is needed.

4 5.

What new information must be developed either.to confirm the adequacy.of the current technical bases or to define new i

r j

. requirements that would restore adequata protection?

3 New information that must be developed is the consequences Jof l

covering the aspirator ports in B&W steam generators.

I ft j

(

6 i

r LL.

~ l

,.,7 s.

g i

6.

What actions are being'taken (if any) or should be taken on i

operating plants to correct the suggested deficiency? By whom-4 l

(organization and individual) are these actions being taken?

j If a deficiency is found to exist, we suggest that licensees il of B&W plants be advised of the staff's conclu a n, determine'if'the I

(

'[.

deficiency is applicable to their plant, and i.. t is, to propose the necessary corrective actions.

t 7.

If the issue is related to another generic issue, 'e.g., TMI Action Plan Item) identify the generic issue and the area of issue overlap.

t

-1 The issue may be related to USI A-47. in that control system l

failures might produce a high water level in the downcomer and a i

covering of the aspirator ports.

We do not have the detailed design v

information yet necessary to confirm this.

a

?

8.

Is anyone currently working on this issue?

If so, name and I

organization.

s The only work we are aware that was done was by RSB.and MEB.

The results of the efforts were documented in-the attached memos.

9.

Name of person supplying information:

Date provided.

Brian W. Sheron 08/24/84

.j

-i

')

-t

-+c T

e eee e

er

-.wa

.f]

':u

1 s '<

3

10. : Provide' references as' appropriate (Memoranda, NUREGs, SRPs,.etc.)~

i

-p.

.k

)

i All relevant documents.are attached.

- !-j 1

11.

The concurrence of the responsible organization,.if possible.

This is not necessary, since all issues'will eventually be review by.the i

responsible organization.

i This prioritization request has been concurred in by DSI and DE

.)

. management.

b i

'l a

i

.i]

9 a

1

  • N I

i k

.h 1

I i

P 5

'l s

...