ML20128G957
| ML20128G957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/17/1983 |
| From: | Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127B435 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-577 NUDOCS 8505300361 | |
| Download: ML20128G957 (4) | |
Text
y-( o 8' . '( UNITED STATES
! , e, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 . t wAssiNotoN. D.C.200tl N*...*.
o*Piero'THE November 17,1983 CosmaissioNER MEMORANDUM FOR: Williar. J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Thomas M. Roberts [/
SUEJECT: FINAL HYDROGEN RULE .
I have enclosed some additional questions in the Hydrogen Rule as I indicated I would during last week's meeting. I would appreciate your responses to these questions in the near future. .
cc: R. Mattson R. Bernero ,
Commissioners .-
OPE SECY e
a e
.M9 8505300361 841102 PDR FOIA HIATT84-577 PDR K
Res'd OfL EDO Date.(Hf.!:5y ss . V or ..
r
( (
Novenber 17,19E3 CD't"1SS10tlER ROBERTS' OUEST10HS ON HYOR0 GEN CONTROL
- 1. Have we any quantification for the net safety improvement brought by the rule?
- 2. Please explain the rationale for changing " equipment survivability" to " equipment qualification". Are we changing the design basis now?
- 3. Please summarize the type of analysis which will be required by the rule.
- Who will review the analyses, and on what time frame.
4 To what degree have post TH! requirements reduced the risk of ,
H2 Production for MK !!!'s and ice condenser PWRs?
- 5. Will this rule be evaluated after the safety goal evaluation period? Any illumination as to how this rule will fare after the evaluation? ,
- 6. How conservative are the hyd. ogen generation figures called out in the rule?,
- 7. In reading the connents, I noted the near unanimity of the industry comments that 75 ' percent metal / water reactions is not realistic, yet this value is still adhered to. Why this disparity of views between NRC and rest of industry? What is the significance? If the net effect is that even with lower, more realistic H, releases, the same analysis and qualification would be required, why 11 there so much disagreement?
e D
e 4
6 6
$ e e
i
y y
[ %1 UNITED STATE 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
j,
) WASulNGToN,Ot NHS j # [' p.)
s q..m)..*
omes op rwa November 17, 1983 commesionan MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations FROM: ThomasM. Roberts [fb SU8 JECT: FINAL HYDROGEN RULE I have enclosed some additional questions in the Hydrogen Rule as I indicated I would during last week's meeting. I would appreciate your responses to these questions in the near future, cc: R. Mattson R. Bernero -- , .
Commissioners OPE '
SECY h
b 4
s 4
e
November 17, 1983 COMMISS10flER ROBERTS' OVESTIO!!S ON HYDROGEN CONTROL
- 1. Have we any quantification for the net safety improvement brought by the rule?
- 2. Please explain the rationale for changing " equipment survivability" to " equipment qualification". Are we changing the design basis now?
- 3. Please summarize the type of analysis which will be required by the rule. Who will review the analyses, and on what time frame.
4 To what degree have post THI requirements reduced the risk of H2 production for itK !!!'s and ice condenser PWRs?
- 5. Will this rule be evaluated af ter the safety goal evaluation period? Any illumination as to how this rule will fare after the evaluation?
- 6. How conservative are the hydrogen generation figures called out in the rule?
- 7. In reading the coerents, I noted the near unanimity of the industry comments that 75 percent metal / water reactions is not realistic, yet this value is still adhered to. Why this disparity of views between NRC and rest of industry? What.is the significance? If the net effect is that even with lower, more' realistic H, releases, the same analysis and qualification would be required, why it there so much disagreement?
I I