ML20205C252
| ML20205C252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/17/1985 |
| From: | Thomas C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ladieu A WESTINGHOUSE OPERATING PLANTS OWNERS GROUP, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8509200211 | |
| Download: ML20205C252 (2) | |
Text
_
September 17, 1985 Mr. Alan E. Ladieu, Chairman DISTRIBUTION:
SGTR Subgroup CentraLf11e f~~BMann VNerses Westirghouse Owners Group SSPR/Readina' SMackay OParr Yankee Atomic Electric Cerreny POR GMazetis KKniel 1671 Worcester Road NSIC DZiemann JHulman Frenircham, Massachusetts 01701 PNoonan DCrutchfield TNovak HRernard RHos! ster HThcroson
Dear Mr. Ladiew:
HBerkow PBernero i
CThomas
SUBJECT:
NRC REVIEW 0F WCAP-10698, "SGTR ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY TO DETEFMINE THE M/PGIN TO STEAM GENERATOR OVERFILL" In our neetino of June 6,1985, you recuested a letter frcm the NRC that indicates the staff's overall vievs renardino the approach the Festinghouse Steam Generator Tube Puoture (SGTR) Subarcup is taking to address the SGTR issue. The purpose of this letter is to respond to that request.
As ycu are aware, the issue of Sr,TD is cper on a number of Westinghouse plants. A number of recently licensed plants have a license condition that reouires resolution of this issue prior to the startup following their first refueling outage. While the Vestinnhouse Subgroup's reports are still under review, at this point the staf' holieves the methodology is acceptable. Further, the staf# believes that the approach taken will lead to acceptable resolution of the variety of issues related to the SGTR accident and accident analyses.
One issue the staff will need to pursue further with you relates to operator action times assumed in your analyses. We recogni7e tFat obtainf rg crerator action tines that are both conservative yet realistically representative of operator perfornance is difficult and has been a refer rart of the SGTR effort. However, certain operator action tines assumed appear to reed further substantiation. Another issue recding clerification is the need #cr plant specific reviews for addressing certain areas (e.g., analyses of main steam line static and dynamic loads).
Ir surrary, at this stage of our review of your reports, we believe the Subgroup's program is responsive to our concerns. However, we will be contretina you in the near future to arrange a meeting to discuss our questions in vore detail.
Sincerely, Original signed by Cecii 0. Thomas, Chief Standardization and Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing a
c d
Ih
/
/h,
9 S /E5
/85 09/
85 09//
85 8509200211 850917 PDR TOPRP EfMEST l
C PDR
e s@ H;uq k
UNITED STATES 6[_
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
- j WASHINGTON, D. C 20555 September 17, 1985 Mr. Alan E. Ladieu, Chairman SGTR Subgroup Westinghouse Owners Group Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1671 Worcester Road Franingham, Massachusetts 01701
Dear Mr. Ladiew:
SUBJECT:
NRC REVIEW 0F WCAP-10698, "SGTR ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY TO DETERMINE THE MARGIN TO STFAM GENERATOR OVERFILL" In our meeting of June 6,1985, you requested a letter from the NRC that indicates the staff's overall views regarding the approach the Westinghouse Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR) Subgroup is taking to address the SGTR issue. The purpose of this letter is to respond to that request.
As'you are aware, the issue of SGTR is open on a nunber of Festinghouse pl a nts. A number of recently licensed plants have a license condition that requires resolution of this issue prior to the startup following their first refuelino outape. While the Westinghouse Subgroup's reports are still under review, at this point the staff believes the methodology is acceptable.
Further, the staff believes that the approach taken will lead to acceptable resolution of the variety of issues related to the SGTR accident and accident analyses.
One issue the staff will need to pursue further with you relates to operator action times assumed in your analyses. We recognize that obtaining operator action times that are both conservative yet realistically representative of operator performance is difficult and has been a major part-of the SGTR effort. However, certain operator action times assumed appear to need further substantiation. Another issue needing clarification is the need for plant specific reviews for addressing certain -
areas (e.g., analyses of main steam line static and dynamic loads).
In sumary, at this stace of our review of your reports, we believe the Subgroup's program is responsive to our concerns. However, we will be contacting you in the near future to arrange a meeting to discuss our questions in more detail.
Sincerely, C; ro.&a Cecil 0. Thomas, Chief Standardization and Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing