ML20126J712

Requests Quantitative Terms of Risk Increase Re Deletion of Encl Bldg.Requests Regulatory Basis for & Description of Required cost-benefit Analysis Re Reduced Safety Margin & Cost Savings

ML20126J712
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	02/18/1981
From:	Kerr W Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Igne E Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Shared Package
ML20126J710	List: ML20126J706 ML20126J712
References
NUDOCS 8105040588
Download: ML20126J712 (1)

Text

-

v v v i uw

~

Y O *;*

i I @6.;.) .. .ed.

E e i_f

~

&N l~ [sf i I

ADVI.S.O. ,RY CO M EACTOR S'AFEGUARDS i, n ye  !

p . p. ; . n MITTE n ON m  ;

! ",.a .. j.!tgCLE43 G 79 CoMMIESION

1. , .s' . ' 4 .. . .. M'XSHI

.*w g, s.

. dN, D. C. 20555 :

e.

i y [ ;;!.. .(

,'.

.y>. ,

t i

1981  !

.: "t .f.f [g ' , ..Ii

. l c. f. 5 ['I.tg}..

.3 f. ?.ehruary

- .; . ~ 18,

\../ F ! rt u C. i V .,/ tr Vi si i

Mr. E. Igne.

ACRS s. .. '-"?'E Nuclear Regulatory Commission 'f ,f.f;-hik,h

. f Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear A1:

t b  !

In a letter dated December 1st, 1980 N r W. E. Ehrensperger concerning the licensing of the j A. W. Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Mr. Eisenhut comments ,

"The staff believes that the deletion of the enclo-sure building appears to represent a significant '

change in safety margin to the design for which t we issued construction permits. " Would you please '

ask the staff what it considers to be the increase  ;

i in risk, in quantitative terms?

i Further in the letter Mr. F.isenhut asks that the l

{~ request ~for change in construction p,ermit "should in " l clude a cost-benefit anElys.t's that demonstrates that i the reduced safety margin would be warranted by the

• savings in cost associated with deleting the contain-  ;

ment enclosure buildings". j Would you please ask the staff: 1 (1) Tae regulatory basis for this request.

(2) kbare one finds described the sort of i analysis that would be acceptable. -

l I

Sincerely, [

h William Kerr j

• i 1

}

' 1 WK/gh l

wom=""* I

. .)

h . .

y- A ca/t. j B105040 h8% 0 Ad / 2 Mnc P/

.500 i

~ - , .

ENCLOSURE 2

,',% ,3.,$' .f.

• %n

• UNITED STATES y Qg' ,; NUCLE AR REGULATORY COh*M!SS!ON s%YRt /)g_Gf,.j g/

j  ; wemucton. o. c. :cssa a,""- "p '

DEC 011553 Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 Mr. W. E. Ehren:perger Senior Vice President Power Supply Georgia Power Company P. O. Btx 4545 Atlanta,'ieorgia 30302

SUBJECT:

Df!.ETION OF THE CONTAINMENT ENCLOSURE BUILDING ON THE A. W. V0GTLE NDULEAR PLANT  : ,

In a letter dated August 21, 1979, Georgia Power Company filed SLpplement '6 .

to its application for Constructior. Permit and Operating License for the A. W. Vogtle plant. This supplement described a modification to the plant design deleting the containment enclosure building and its safety grade exhaust and recirculation system. The modification replaced the enclosure building with an equipment building extending upward from grade to about -

one third of the containment building height. The equipment building is not .

designed to perform a safety function. This supplement also included revised analyses for the radiological consequences of a Loss-of-Coolant Accident, with the calculations not taking credit for the enclosure building.

The proposed deletion of the enclosure building and its safety function was nreviously discussed in a meeting with the NRC staff on August 8,1979.

In that meeting, you requested an expeditious review and prompt decision on the design change. .

In a lLtter dated April 28, 1980, Georgia Power Company advised that the , i need for a prompt decision on this design change had abated and may be delayed until January 31, 1981; and that the design was proceeding based upon deletion of the enclosure building. -

+ '

,bru c J nv  ;

j .

y M D l!

. .k l

.Mr. W. E. Ehrensperger DEC01~530 h siaFf believ~ thn the d:1: tic.. cf thc cn:losus e building appears to'  !

represent a significant change in safety cargin to the design for which we .

issued the construction permits. The change would impact and invalidate the evaluations presented in the Safety. Evaluation Report issued t arch 8,1974. .

Thereferc, w: cenclude that the proposed change must be considered under an l

amendment to the construction permits. . If you wish to pursue this matter, please provide a Request for Amendment of Construction Permits. . Such a  ;

request for amendment'should inclucc a cost-benefit analysis that demonstrates that the redeced safety margin would be warranted by the. savings in cost associated with deleting the containment enclosure building. Conversely, you tsy providt us with your basis fe concluding th:t the proposed modification  :

to the enclosure builcing should hot be considered a change in the proposed design of the facility as described in your application including. but not ,

t limited to the principal architectural and engineering criteria for the design" or in "the major features or components incorporated therein for the protection  :

of the health and safety of the public."

incerely, 3

% i f s f

. v. er ut, Direc'.o . . .

, Division of Licensing -

/ . ., *

-l

?

k

' t e e I

l 1

e

• .e a

$ 'I 4

e

.- . - . . - , - . . ,_-.. _ -..--.. ...--., ---