ML20090G578
| ML20090G578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1983 |
| From: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082380335 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-91-106, RTR-NUREG-0916, RTR-NUREG-916 NUDOCS 8309290158 | |
| Download: ML20090G578 (4) | |
Text
-
DISTRIBUTION _
LRii PSRB Reading DHFS R/F Docket No. 50 '<.44
' AU6 2 3 1983 HBClayton s
JWC11fford SEBryan marsh Frank J. Hirekases. Assistant Dirveter l
HEHORANDUM TOR:
11a BSheron
- for Safety saient JHulman Division of Licensing FRON:
Dennis L. Ziemann, Acting Deputy Directar Division of Human Factors Safety
SUBJECT:
EVALUATION OF ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION'S RESPONSE TO LONG TERM ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE GilmA RESTART 5AFETY EVALUATION REPORT. SGTR INCIDENT Wo have reviewed RGandE Corporation's response to long ters items assigned to PSRB. These items are contained in the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Rsstart SER (NUREG-0916) issued after the steam generator tube rupture event of January 25, 1982.
Items 6,10,11.12 and 20 were assigned to I
PSRB and were to be coordinated with RSB and AEB as requested by a Licensing l
Work Request Routing Slip of February 2,1983. By agreement with RSB PSRB accepted responsibility for lead review of ttems 11,12, and 20 and RSB l
accepted responsibility for lead review of ituts 6 and 10.
Our evaluation of items 11,12 and 20 are enclosed.
This -review was performed by S. Bryan Principal Operational Safety Enginear I
of the Procedures and Systems Review Branch. The reviewer is not aware of any " Differing Professional Opinions" for the Ginna Long Tern Items.
Hr. Bryan can ha reached on Extension 29852.
SW1 stae.a w b w L rJ m sen Dennis. Ziennn, Acting Deputy Director pivisio(n, of Hcman Factors Safety l
i Nkv1'$h ve.
I
Enclosure:
Evaluation of Response to
,g, 14,_/ y%.;,
Lonq Ter.1 It t 11,12, g g jg, 4 and 20 in 6 tart SER (NUREG-0916) SGTR Event
'g3, 4 g f4 d*'^h l
cc w/ enclosure:
M A.
l R. Mattsoa'~
' g k.,d g d.
i 7
m e
R. w st'on
~~~~~'N.*
I
'p / B. Mann 4,
gp s
facM' y Y '.y 5
's e309290150-sae ra
.s l
4F AheeK 05000e+4 C m _7) 4-1,.,_'.
- fl,
'N, i
AF i
i
_s, p,(j[,5,:%,qp,, PSI:RSQ,kf_SMh,,,,,,,)!
,R(S,: A,6 i
bm.0HJy. SRB,,,, M S,,:PSRB, wAo..dsIanah.. 3fliNai.d.... uaqp83 9
.atz.iwan
. t.a a...... Ina r a n..........
. as ren.........
9 n.........,,fg83
....fl.t?!.aa,,,,,,,,,83
,,83,,,,,,,,
,,84,,8 3 e
AuMa_
8(.t/83 - 83 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY um. mi-unc mnu va nm wu cm l -.
[)
EVALUATION OF RESPONSE TO LONG TERM ITEMS 11, 12, AND 20 IN RESTART SER (NUREG-0916)
STEAM GENERATOR TUBE RUPTURE (SGTR) CVENT
{
SER ITEM 11:
Within six months, provide procedures for cooldown following a steam generator tube rupture.
LICENSEE RESPONSE:
g 1
The proceduret for cooldown following a steam generator tube rupture have been prepared based on We$tinghouse ')wners Group guidance and have been implemented.
{
NRC EVALUATIONt The staff agrees with the licensee's decision to implement orocedures for tooloown based on the Westinghouse Owners Group (VOC) guidance.
In a letter, dated June 3, 1983, from Oarrett G. Eisenhut to all operating reactor licensees owning Westin'hhouse PWR reactors, he ladicated that the NRC concluded that the technical guidelines developed by the WOG were acceptable for implementation.
These guidelines include guidance for cooling down following a steam generator tube r-pture.
Thus, RGandE's response, i.e.,
to implement the guidance cc,ntained in the WOG Guidelines, is acceptable for covering cooldown following a steam generator tubt rupture.
SER ITEM 12:
Within six months, provide procedures to cover a steam 7enerator tube rupture with a failed open steam generator safety valve.
9
,y
.)
2 i
LICCNSEE RESPONSE generator tube rupture procedure has been broadened The steam to include various site steam breaks, including a break equivalent to a failed open safety valver coincident with a steam generater tube ruoture on the same steam generator.
This procedure ha+. bet lemented.
NRC EVALUATION:
In a discussion with licensee representatives on July 15, 1983, the' staff was advised that procedures covering a steam generator tube rupture with a failed open steam generator safety valve h
were broadened as indicated in the licenset response above and were made to be in accord Eith guidance in the WOG technical guidelines.
Because these guidelines cover contingencies for various sizes of steam breaks simultaneous with a SGTR, and because the guidelines developed by WOG have been found
~
acceptable by the staff for implementation, the staff finds the licen see 's response acceptable.
SER ITEM 20:
Within six months, determine the criteria which should be provided in the steam generator tube rupture procedures for deciding when to discontinue the use of the main condenser in favor of the atmosoheric steam dump.
- ~ - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 LICENSEE RESPONSE:
It has been determined that steam dump to condenser should be util' zed whenever possible during a steam generator tube rupture.
The determination was based on minimizing releases and the best method to monitor releases.
Wher, steam is 4
dumped to the condenser many contaminants remain in the condensate system and less contaminants are released through the air ejector than would be released through steam dump to atmosphere.
It is also more straight forward to monitor releases through the air ejector than through the atmospheric steam dump.
Therefore, the current tube rupture procedure E-1.4 directs operators to use steam dump to condenser as long as necessary permissives are met.
NRC E[ALUATION:
The staff agrees that steam dump to condenser should be used for RCS cooling whenever possible following a SGTR because it minimizes radioactive releases to che environment and allows more accurate quantification af those releases.
In additions the staff recognizes that the condenser n.a y not always be available for use during a SGTR event (e.g.e if offsite power is unavailable).
In such circumstancess steam dump to atmosphere is the alternate..i e t h o d for cooling the RCS and removing decay heat.
Wer therefore, find the licensee's response acceptable,
_