ML20210S233

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Response to Two Addl Questions on NRC Evaluation of Plant,Including Explanation of H Denton Statement Re Ability of Mark I Containments to Survive Severe Accident. NRC Response Encl
ML20210S233
Person / Time
Site: Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date: 06/25/1986
From: Paull P
VERMONT, STATE OF
To: Lohaus P
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20209C518 List:
References
FOIA-86-586 NUDOCS 8610080051
Download: ML20210S233 (4)
v • d • e


Text

._. _ _.

215 337 5368 i

d5 '86 15807 NRC KING OF PRUSSIA P01

- = ~

tb p-

_ _ ?,'

f f L - ? 2 : ~ --

ST ATE OF VERMONT paran7msNT or rueuc osavict ite tT AT E STRtt?

state orrics suitomo un=T tuta esses Tgb 693 0983641 June 25, 1986 i

Mr. Paul Lohaus Stste Liaison Officer Nucitar Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvia 19406

Dear Mr. Lohaus:

The following are two additional questions on NRC's evaluation of Vermont Yankee.

1.

Mr. Harold Denton, Director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has been quoted recently expressing a concern regarding the ability of Mark I containrents to survive a severe accident.

Please esplain Mr'. Denton's statement and provide support for those statements.

Also, please explain why this issue was not addressed in.your Re-start Readiness Evaluation.

2.

Mr. Daniel Muller, Director, BWR Project Directorate $2, Division of BWR Licensing, stated in a June 20, 1956 memorandum to Thomas Murley that a new safety analysis need to be done for older plants, such as Vermont Yankee.

Would any such analysis address the concerns l

raised by Mr. Denton, l

l Thank you for your response to these questions as soon j

as possible.

l Vety,truly yours, j/

8610080051 860731

. /*. /

PDR FOIA

/, (,

'y Phillipb.Paull'J..

CURRAN 86-586 PDR Mucleat Engineer

l s.

l '

^

Y l

i

. e;.

.-J S

y, kMIM 14811 W E @ O.

M

.h

[

3,

,,.,,_.,. y Y
  • 7.?

i f(

4. -

M1,~./.

.

  • n-s M

C L

L 1

. t. s;tysr...

a ;.,'; _

l a.

.n,f

}, ?.:2%.1,,f

.s.

7."'..'e c.- 4,

7

~ f;iQ

'~

?$$&k!.c-

..; J.m.Q 1.- ::. : a.u.....

.. -.. ~.

t

.w 4

A.pp3magg

.<, vi i,1

,v..tv ;' ~. M 7f.'

  1. '.'a

.,1 r.,fm

,- M.:..

'b Q

t.

7'n....

~ #

j M$$i&de ' Energy Qeakission (ABC) note fres

'7 i

W-" T M.;!ffrom stephen sanauer ( 9 /2 8 /7 2 ).......................t..A 1,.

s*

i a$. b

  • .A. t..

7,,,'N "

. I

.Pfessure-Suppression containment" r e por t...........i..A 24' -

,1 pnSp$....-Yaak Force sReview on 'Bypeas Effect in OR

'(j l'

qg Q.

T*I L.T TPressure-suppression Conta.inment records k

(J",j i. y g M1,1/9/71 and 12/1/71).................................C S-8

t.%.

j, ;

.;, nyWeslw..v-ear Gefety, Vol. 15, 30. 2 March-April 1974, fjfw 1.;;. =s.volutions and current St.stus of the Abst 3,,y W

.'7,.'.

M.Ev e[7g' ntainment systes*, G. E. Wade, Aaanger ofAtom ic Power Equi pment Depa

...v3

%';.Q*,$&-

. 6Ha Joseph M. Rendrie to John ~ F. O,' Leary (9/2S/72)...C

- u." L..,.

7*:y

', ' ' p; r

,,M q'ith sensored portions as first received y

  • .g qq;;7..vy ' WC8................................................C 2 ? ' i'.

6. :. as Lelter f rom John O' Leary to Carter-Mondale he.1.'

a '>

Policy Planning (11/1/76).............................D kN

'A aa

.o

%y.Inside NRC, Vol. 8, No. 12, June 9, 1986,

".4

.v

,, c; "Denton Urges Industry to settle Doubts n;

b Mark 2 containment", page 143...................B l

- 4.,3 m:. e out

=:

~;.;:

I'n --

n W

A*,maassessment of the Technical Bases for Estimating Source Terms," MURDG-8956, July 19 8 5.......F

. ~.5-3 d.!...

,- - n --.

W.

.. Tankee Technical Spec 1 ficationa.'....................G I specifications submitted to Congress

  • y a' e. p.

,.: r.

rm

,,t unc Commissioner James Asse1stine..................N

f. : : y --:.

.n issioner James Asselstine's speech before s

~8. Subcosimittee on Energy Conservation

'.1. 7-ic-..

-. And powe r ( 5 /2 2 /86 ).................................. I 3.* F Frr. --

u W

_e <c t

7; pac.

y...

ll 19 j'?Wl~

..,mt u-~E-

.A-TJ]

.ggM, l,. Ef..

-W Kah.

- [l}

?

..F W:

..q

.t

'N ht%

,,, 4 j :

.y

.w

~

g.

~

r e

JUN.26 '86 08:29 YArKEk 'OMIC FRAMINGHAM MA P.22

. la Rgsp0NSE Yo NRC REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Question 1:

Mas a plant-specific PRA been done on Vemont Yankee (W)? If yes, does it provide a basis for estimating containment failure probability given a full core molt?

Answer 1:

A plant-specific PRA has not been done on W.

Question 2:

How active has W been on keeping up-to-date on IDCOR activitiest Did W have a representative at the June 16, 1986 meeting?

Answer 2:

W has boon very setive on keeping up-to-date on IDCOR activities.

W, through Yankee Atomic Electric Company's (YAEC's) Nuclear Services Division, has had a representative on the IDCOR Policy Committee since inception. Additionally W has been following the IDCOR activities under the suspices of the BWR Owners Group. W participated in the January 29 and 30, 1986 Owners Group Meeting to discuss IDCOR Individual plant Evaluation (IPE) methodology and through YAEC participated in the BWROG review of the IPE methodology document recently submitted to, and currently under review by, NRC staff.

Further, since January 1986, a senior level engineer has been assigned full-time to review and prepare for application of the IPE methodology to W.

W had three representatives at the June 16, 1986 meeting on BWR containment perfomance during severe accidents.

participants included the YAEC Manager of Nuclear Evaluation and Support, the YAgC senior Engineer previously mentioned, and the Lead systems Engineer for W.

}

Question 3:

Does W have drywell sprays?

Answer 3:

W has drywell sprays.

Question 4:

Does W have wetwell venting procedures in pasco?

Answer 4:

W currently has operating procedures which outline in detail the steps necessary for torus (wetwell) venting. The Emergency Operating Procedures provide specific guidance on When and under what circumstances this procedure is to be utilised.

I

m.26 'e6 03:33 YAW ATOMIC FPAM W W M f-BESPONSE TO WRC REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (continued)

Question 5:

What is W's status of compliance with the ATW8 Rule?

Answer 5:

W is in full compliance with the 10CFR50.62(c)(3) requirement to have an Alternate Rod Insertion (ARI) system that is diverse (from the Reactor Trip System) from sensor output to the final activation device.

W is in full compliance with the 10CFR50.62(c)(5) requirement to have equipment to trip the Reactor Recirculation Fumps (RPT)

System under conditions indicative of an ATWS.

With respect to the 10CTR50.62(c)(4) requirenant. W has committed (by letter. W. F. Murphy to H. R. Denton, dated September 29. 1985) to implement a design or operational modification of its standby Liquid Control (SLC) system pelor to startup from the scheduled 1987 outage. This schedule is consistent with the scheduler requirements specified in the ATWS Rule.

e I

I

,_.__-----.n---------

-e---~

"" " - ^ ' -- " - - ~ ' - - ' ' ~ -

' ' " ' ' '

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20210S233&oldid=4016059"