ML20127D076
| ML20127D076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200001 |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1992 |
| From: | Kelly G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Duncan J GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127C803 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9301150086 | |
| Download: ML20127D076 (2) | |
Text
-
kt 400 e
[f
'o,,
UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
r WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
\\....+/
l December 28, 1992 NOTE T0:
c 'Duncan, GE J
FROM:
/y rufaQy P
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATION REQUE 1 FOR GE'S SUBMITTAL 0F A PRA-BASED RAP INPUT I have enclosed requested clarifications that deal with areas of GE's Chapter 19, Appendix K submittal (PRA Input to Reliability Assurance Program),
if you have any questions, please give me a call.
Enclosure:
as stated cc:
C. Larson, GE 9301100086 921228 DR ADDCK 05200001 PDR
- -. ~
- 0 s
(
+
Cl.ARIELG_A.J10HS NEEDED REG?.RDING THE ABWR P.BA INPUT TO RAP j
December 22, 1992 1
page 19K-10, Section 19K.5 - Please explain why the hydraulic control units were deleted from the list of important SSCs.
pages 19K-Il and -12 Section 19K.8 - Previous staff comments inquired t
as to why ac/dc power were not 1isted as important SSCs in the shutdown analysis.
GE indicated in writing that it was going to add ac/dc-power.
I:owever, they do r.et appear on the list of important SSCs in Section 19K.8.
Please explain why, page 19K.21, Section 19K.ll.7 - GE has proposed to Inspect a limited number of systt.ms (based on its PRA-based seismic margins analysis) once every 10 year:; by repeating the seismic ualkdown which was conducted af ter constru: tion in the general area of the' equipment.
The staff finds the concept to be an excellent idea, but would propose the-following modifications: perfore the EPRI NP-6041 examination for seismic vuherabilities again, but do not repeat the calculational portion of the walkdown.
This will assure that the seismically important systems are all examined and will help to assure-that the assumptions that were made in the ABWR PRA-based seismic margins analysis (e.g., supports) continue ta hold for the as-built plant 10 years later.
page 19K-23, Section 19K.ll.12 - The staff and GE have discussed the importance of performing a good annual test of the smoke removal _ system.
The staff had painted out the concern that the test reflect the potential for more than one door oeing open between divisions-due to l-fire fighting or other needs.
It is important-for the fire fighters to know if having more than one door open will nullify the smoke control system negative pressure capacity.
In Section 19K.ll.12 GE has indirectly addressed this concern by-stating that the test should be performed without restrictino personnel-movement.
It is not clear to the staff if this admonishment will provide a determination of the-o capability of the smoke control system to work effectively with more than one docr open between divisions.
The staff suggests that more direct wording of this concern would be useful.
Please. address this
- issue, p
L
(-
y n
-