ML20196G074
| ML20196G074 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/07/1977 |
| From: | Stello V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Arlotto G NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196F442 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-854, TASK-02-01.A, TASK-02-01.B, TASK-02-01.C, TASK-02-02.C, TASK-03-02, TASK-03-04.A, TASK-03-04.C, TASK-03-05.A, TASK-03-07.A, TASK-03-08.A, TASK-03-10.A, TASK-03-10.B, TASK-03-11, TASK-03-12, TASK-2-1.A, TASK-2-1.B, TASK-2-1.C, TASK-2-2.C, TASK-3-10.A, TASK-3-10.B, TASK-3-11, TASK-3-12, TASK-3-2, TASK-3-4.A, TASK-3-4.C, TASK-3-5.A, TASK-3-7.A, TASK-3-8.A, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8803040348 | |
| Download: ML20196G074 (4) | |
Text
e
~
W . * ;G ( d ?'
2
- l OCT 0 719M i
MDiORAllDUM FOR: Guy A. Arlotto, Director, Division of Engineering ;
Standards, SD FR0ti:
Victor Stello, Jr. , Director, Division of Operatinq Reactors, HRR ,
SUBJECT:
SD C0t44ENTS ON SEP TOPICS Thank you for reviewing and comenting on the review topics proposed for the Systenatic Evaluation Program. Your coments have been carefully considered and many have been incorporated. Enclosed are responses to your specific coments. If you have further concerns or coments, please contact D. Zierann (X27380) by October 12.1977.
an:ws5%.ud?!
h'v\.tl$
Victor Stello, k2A mf Jr., Director &
Division of Operating Reactors E Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation N
l
- i I
e l
\
)
l l
$ 8803040348 880229 I I
PDD FOIA
. CONNC?.3 /-854 PDR A4!
~
(~ .
(~
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON SEP TOPICS BY SD ll-1. A - In general the comnient is valid. However, there have been cases of changes in water level and enlarging beach areas, which resulted in change of area over which the licensee has control.
Il-1.B - We have revised to clarify the Safety Objective, ll-1.C - We believe the intent is clear as stated, ll-2.C - Your concern that the work underway is not for the accident case is valid; however, many believe it will be applicable.
We are removing the reference to 10 CFR 50 from the text as suggested.
111 In general we agree that the tornada loading will control; however, the SRP does include both the design wind and tornado wind. in the event some of the plants have not been constructed explicitly for tornado protection, we can establish the existing level of protection and then decide whether or not the design is acceptable.
Iper 3 '
^ ~ '
lil-4.A - As indicated in the Status of the definition the R C will
~
consider this problem.
111-4.C - Our references are not all inclusive. The IAEA Safety Guide D-4 may be useful for information, but we need to examine its applicability first.
Ill-5.A - The definition is considered correct as written.
Ill-7. A - We understand that some of the topic titles may appear to be lengthy and even awkward. They were composed to reflect the combination of related topics and to far.ilitate better tracking of the specific issues. For this reason, we believe that this topic should be retained as is. l 1
i
C .
(
-2 Ill-8. A - Your proposed rewrite will be used.
!!!-10. A - Your coments were adopted.
Ill-10.B - Although the failure mode study indicated in the coment may provide some useful topic information this relates to
' inservice inspection of flywheels rather ,than pump overspeed.
111 We believe that the definition should be retained as is for clarity, since licensees may contend that accident loads are not plant conditions.
111 Comnent adopted.
IV Coment adopted.
VI-7. A.4 - Counter-current flow limiting phenomena in BWR spray cooling is, as you say, not in the current models and for that reason it will not be considered by SEP, 5 VI-10.B - Coment adopted. i VII Conment adopted. '
l V111-3. A - During the systematic evaluation, positions may not go as far as the Regulatory Guide positions. They certainly will be used in the review; however, alternate measures may be acceptable. ;
Vill-3.B - Coment adopted.
l IX Changed wording.
'1 i'
l i
(
(
3- '
XII Sections under C.2 have been deleted.
XV In response to your question, core parameters are submitted I with each reload application.
XV Concern resolved with the commentor.
i XV We do not believe further detail on iodine spiking and dote '
criteria is needed to understand the safety objective.
e XV We_ believe the safety objective is correct as stated.
XV Topic was deleted for lack of safety significance.
i XV Topic was deleted for lack of safety significance. '
XV Cantent adopted, j
!Il i' l
I l
I NOV 8 UTT MENORANDUM FOR: D. L. Ziemann, Chief Review Group. Division of Operating Reactors l FROM: L. C. Shao, Chief. Engineering Branch, DOR ,
- SUDJECT
- SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM (SEP) l PRELIMINARY SEISMIC DATA l l
l l I
l The Engineering Branch recently Mrfomed a preliminary
- review of the FSAR's and Hazard Summy Reports for the eleven , ,
i plants tentatively selected for the SEP. Enclosed is a table showing significant seismic data that*were cwpiled as a result of the subject review. i L. C. Shao, Chief 5 '
Engineering Branch g Division of Operating Reactors p l
, $fgh-QCr4{-3 k5 .
i l
i
,